TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....separate orders dated 29/04/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter 'the ld. CIT(A)'] pertaining to AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Both these appeals are barred by limitation by 40 days. We have considered the request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals, which is supported by an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant, who was the cause for the delay in filing of the appeals. We are convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 3. Since common grievance in involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Though the quantum may differ. 4. Representatives of both the sides argued o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness income since 2008 and the same has been accepted as such by the AO. However, during the year under consideration, the AO breached the principle of consistency and treated the income as income from other sources. 6. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of National Leasing Limited & Ors in Income tax Appeal No. 685 of 2007 & Ors., judgment dated 21/10/2024. The relevant findings read as under:- "26. We also find substance in the contention as urged by Mr. Cama that the Assessing Officer, for almost 11 Assessment Years has consistently held that such income of the assessee is required to be treated as "income from business" and not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years has been treated in one way or the other and that has been allowed to continue such position ought not be changed without any new fact requiring such a direction. (See: M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 1 SCC 659). The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (Supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 157 (Bom), in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above discussion, the appeals need to succeed. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside to the extent we hold that 21 October 2024 16ITXA-685-07GRP.DOC the rent income derived by the assessee from lease of its properties was assessable as income from profits and gains of business. The questions of law as framed by this Court are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 7. As no new facts have been brought on record by the AO and the law has not changed, therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we direct the AO to treat the parking receip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the AO is directed to allow the depreciation. 10. The next grievance relates to the denial of the claim of depreciation on plant and machinery used for maintaining the garden and club house. 10.1. The assessee has installed plant and machineries for the maintenance of the swimming pool and the club house and claimed depreciation on the same. The claim was denied because neither the assessee has shown any income on letting out of plant and machinery nor it is the owner of the swimming pool/garden/club house. 11. Section 57(ii) of the Act read as under:- "Deductions. 57. The income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :- ***....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letting of the said machinery, plant or furniture, the income from such letting, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession";" 11.2. A conjoint reading of both the provisions show that the income should be chargeable under the head income from other sources for the claim of depreciation. Since no income has been shown by the assessee, the assessee has not fulfilled the mandatory condition of Section 56(2)(ii) & (iii) and Section 57(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the AO cannot be faulted with. This Ground is accordingly dismissed. 12. The next grievance relates to the disallowance of the claim of expenditure which are legal and professional fees, repairs and maintenance o....