TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the sake of brevity, we are disposing of these appeals through a consolidated order. 2. In all the impugned years, the assessee has raised the following grounds, which are as follows : 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in considering License Fees from Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd for Rs. 6,12,500/- and Hoarding Charges from M/s Deesha Leascon Pvt. Ltd for Rs. 13,00,000/- under "Income from other sources" instead of "Income from House Property" without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. As assessee has correctly claimed, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently deduction under section 24(i) for repairs is not considered. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in considering income from Hoarding charges f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom house property. The AR to strengthen his arguments cited the case of CIT vs. Bajaj Bhawan Owners Premises Coop. Society Ltd in ITA No. 3183 of 2010 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court found that the ITAT had followed the decision of Sharada Chamber Premises vs. Income Tax Officer and Income Tax Officer vs. Cuffee Parade Sainara Premises Coop. Society Ltd., which had not been agitated by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court and even the Counsel for the Revenue in the case of Bajaj Bhawan was not able to pin point any error on the decision of the ITAT on the impugned issue, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court thus dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. 5. The Authorized Representative also cited the decisions of Coo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her part of the building nor the land appurtenant thereto. Therefore, permitting some companies to display their boards on hoardings cannot be taken as income from house property as hoardings cannot be treated as part of the building". The DR thus pleaded that the income should be assessed from other sources and not income from House property. 9. In the rejoinder, the AR submitted, that the case of CIT vs. Zaibunissa Begum reported in 151 ITR 320 (AP) is on a different issue and hence not applicable. So far as the Calcutta High Court is concerned, the Authorized Representative submitted that in that case, facts are different, as seen from the order, that, it was the hoarding only which was leased out and not the terrace portion. That was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property". 12. This ground of appeal is allowed. 13. Ground No. 2 is against considering the income received at Rs. 13,00,000/- as against Rs. 5,00,000/- actually received from Deesha Leason Pvt. Ltd. 14. Assessee had shown Rs. 5,00,000/- having received from Deesha, whereas the Revenue authorities have treated Rs. 13,00,000/- for the full year, citing the terms of agreement that Rs. 75,000/- on maintenance of hoarding and Rs. 25,000/- being the rental for the hoarding. The revenue authorities have computed Rs. 13,00,000/- (instead of Rs.12,00,000/-) which neither the DR nor the Authorized Representative has been able to explain as to how it was Rs. 13,00,000/-. In any case, the issue is whether the income accrued/received by asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stopped from September 2002, if at all it was stopped, needs to be looked into by the AO to come to a definite conclusion that the assessee CHS had actually received Rs. 5,00,000/- and nothing more in the current year, because in this year, the liability was denied by Deesha post 31.08.2002 as the permission from the Municipal Corporation was not there. 18. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the AO, in all the four impugned assessment years, who shall make appropriate enquiries from the parties concerned and from the local authorities, who shall examine in detail the factual circumstances with regard to payments made by Deesha to the assessee CHS and the reasons to discontinue pay the rental, before coming to a reasonable co....