| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 2496 2009 SLD 2496 (2009) 312 ITR 68 |
Karnataka High Court
I.T. APPEAL No. 133 OF 2003 JANUARY 7, 2008
DEEPAK VERMA AND K. L. MANJUNATH, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
I.T. APPEAL No. 133 OF 2003 JANUARY 7, 2008
DEEPAK VERMA AND K. L. MANJUNATH, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Deputy Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Maharaja Shopping Complex
Law:
Section:
Section 56 of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources - Chargeable as u PROPERTY INCOME v. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES Where Assessing Officer had not given a proper finding in regard to profit and nature of business of firm and nature of income derived by assessee, he was not justified in disallowing loss claimed by assessee from sub-letting of shopping complex with facilities like equipment and furniture [Remanded] [Assessment year 1995-96] Dy. CIT v. Maharaja Shopping Complex [2009] 312 ITR 68 (Kar.) In view of section 56, it is for the Assessing Officer to give a finding whether it should be treated as income from business or from other sources or income from house property. The assessee-firm had taken a land on lease as a sub-lessee had constructed a shopping complex and let out the same to various tenants along with certain facilities which, according to the assessee, was an equipment and furniture. The assessee filed the return of income declaring loss. The Assessing Officer held that the income was from house property and not business income. Hence he disallowed the loss. Held that the Assessing Officer had not given a proper finding in regard to the profit and nature of business of the firm and nature of income derived by the assessee. In the result, the matter was to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. M.V. Seshachala for the Appellant. A. Shankar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. - This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.T.A. No. 570/Bang/2000 raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee under the head 'Income from business' instead of 'Income from house property' ?" 2. We have heard learned the counsel for the parries. 3. After hearing we have noticed the following undisputed facts in this case. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm. The firm having taken the land on lease as a sub-lessee has constructed a shopping complex and let out the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492