TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his appeal are that the assessee is deriving income from house property, other sources and long term capital gains. For the AY.2013-14, the assessee filed return of income on 26-03-2014 declaring an income of Rs.1,90,16,300/- after claiming exemption u/s.54EC of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). During the course of assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee admitted an income of Rs.57,56,254/- from house property, Rs.1,31,84,565/- from capital gains and Rs.2,30,480/- from other sources. From their property called Challa Chambers, wherein the brother of the assessee was also having a share, the assessee derived an income of Rs.12,35,986/- towards maintenance charges and after deducting the expenses to the tune of Rs.10,65,361....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the letting out the property and the so called amenities they cannot form part of the business income. For reaching this conclusion, Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decisions reported in JST Reality Private Limited (Mumbai ITAT) ITA No.3974/Mum/2011 (AY.2007-08), G.Raghuram (Hyderabad, ITAT) ITA Nos.314 & 315/Hyd/2017, dt.20-03-2019 and Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.369/2015 by order dt.27-09-2016. 5. Apart from this, Ld. CIT(A) noticed that insofar as the computation of capital gains is concerned, the assessee claimed exemption u/s.54EC of the Act to the extent of Rs.1 Crore for the AYs.2012-13 and 2013-14 on the ground that he invested Rs.50 Lakhs in NHAI bonds on 31-03-2013 and 30- 04-2013 each, on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for the AY.2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the contention of the assessee that the service charges constitute a separate source of income, though the income from house property taxes into its fold the letting out the tenant which includes the services like providing fans, bulbs, air conditions and lift etc. He submits that Ld. CIT(A) further held in the AY.2012-13 that any payments towards services like cleaning, housekeeping, security and lighting etc., would not fall in the ambit of letting out the premises and constitute a separate maintenance service for which a separate payment could be received. 8. Per contra, learned DR submits that all the amenities now the assessee enumerates under the maintenance agreement are the factors which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is therefore, clear that there is an overlap in the services provided in the rental agreement and maintenance agreement and when a service is covered by rental agreement, even if an additional accommodation is provided by way of car parking, certainly it would be an activity covered by the income from house property only. 10. There are certain services provided by the assessee which are common for tenants and non-tenants and have nothing to do with the letting out activity like cleaning and housekeeping etc., and such services could be secured by the occupants of the premises even by the third parties and, therefore, merely because they are provided by the land lord alone, it cannot be said that they are part of letting out activity. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....khs in the AY.2014-15. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the alternative, the transfer of shares took place on 31-03-2013 and, therefore, the investment made on 31-03-2013 cannot be considered because it is not after the date of transfer of the original asset, but on the date of transfer of the original asset. 13. Learned AR firstly contended that as is evident by the bank entry to be found at page No.94 of the paper book the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,52,68,979/- was received on 28-01-2013 itself but the actual transfer of shares took place on 20-03-2013 and, therefore, the investment made on 31-03-2013 was proper and after the transfer of the original asset. Nextly he contended that in the decisions reported in Coromandel Indus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, the unreasonable discrimination cannot be read into a provision of the Act so as to violate the principle of equality. While attributing such an act of discrimination, in violation of the principles of equality, to any statutory provision, the adjudicatory fora must be slow and reject such an interpretation. Basing on this analogy, he stresses that the decision of the Hon'ble Rajastan High Court in the case of Raj Kumar & Sons (supra) has to be preferred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in consonance with the constitutionality of the interpretation. 15. Having considered the issue in the light of the submission made on either side, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) is right in his observation that there is conflict ....