Coordinate bench dismissed revenue appeals relying on the earlier judgment in T.C.A.Nos.1488-1490 of 2008, holding that godown/warehouse rents are business income. Current appeals disposed on the same lines.
Tax Case Appeals dismissed as covered by coordinate bench decision; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.09.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Tax Case Appeal Nos.1254 to 1256 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai-III Appellant in all
T.C.A.'s
..Vs..
M/s.S.S.M.Estates Ltd,
No.6,Dr.T.V.Naidu Road,
Chetpet,
Chennai-600 031. Respondent in all
T.C.A.'s
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.02.2009 made in I.T.A.Nos.830/Mds/2008, 831/Mds/2008 and 832/Mds/2008 for the Assessment Years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-200 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals V,chennai made in ITA.NOs.349&350/200506& 389/2006-07 order dated 13.12.2007 and against the order of assistant commissiioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI(1), chennai, and Income Tax Officer(OSD) company circle VI(1), chennai made in GIR/PAN NO S-122/AABCS 5219H order dated 18.10.2005 and 17/10/2005 and 20/11/2006 for the Assessment Years 2002-03,2003-04, and 2004-2005 respectively.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthikumar (in all T.C.A.'s) Sr.Standing counsel Assisted by K.G.Usharani Jr.Standing counsel
For Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayanan (in all T.C.A.'s) for Subbarayan Aiyar Padmanabhan
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
Today when these Appeals are taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the Assessee as well as the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the matter is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.09.2018 in T.C.A.Nos.1488 to 1490 of 2008 [The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s.S.S.M.Estates Ltd.,] ,in respect of the same Assessee. The said Judgment is quoted below for ready reference:
"These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 31.01.2008, in ITA Nos.1017/Mds/2007, 1018/Mds/2007 and 1019/Mds/2007, for the Assessment Years 1997-98, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, respectively.
2.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Mr.V.Vikram, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
3.These Appeals have been admitted on 18.09.2008, on the following Substantial Question of Law:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Godown/Ware Houses rents received by the assessee as business income, even though the rental income received by the assessee in the nature of income from house property?”
4.The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the above Substantial Question of Law has been answered, by the Division Bench of this
Court, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the Assessee's own case for the Assessment Years 199697, 1998-99 and 2001-02, in the case of The Commissiioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras vs. M/s.S.S.M.Estates Ltd., in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.468 to 470 of 2008, dated 24.02.2015. The operative portion of the said judgement reads as follows:
“7.It is seen that the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd., reported in 258 ITR 93 and that of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chennai properties and Investments Ltd., reported in (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad) are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the receipts itself are rental receipts. Whereas, in the present case, the assessee itself has retained the possession and there is no fiduciary relationship of landlord and tenant.
8.The Tribunal, by going into the individual aspects of the business to come to the conclusion that it is a case of warehousing business and, therefore, would fall only under the head “business Income”.
9.In view of the well considered reasoning given by the Tribunal, we find noi reason to differ with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, which reasoning is fully justified in the facts of the present case. This Court finds no good reason to differ with the said findings of fact. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
10.In the result, finding no merit i the present appeals, the same are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
5.Following the above decision, these Appeals, filed by the Revenue, are dismissed and the Substantial Question of Law is answered in favour of the assessee. No costs.
Accordingly, these Tax Case Appeals are disposed of on
the same lines. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
arr
To
1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS 'D' BENCH,
CHENNAI.
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS V,CHENNAI
3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(OSD) COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI
4.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE
VI(1), CHENNAI
+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthikumar , Advocate SR.No. 80152
+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan , Advocate SR.No.
80153
TCA Nos.1254 to 1256 of 2009
A.SK(12/11/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the matter is covered by the coordinate bench decision in T.C.A.Nos.1488 to 1490 of 2008 regarding the same assessee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd.Distinguished¶22
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd., 258 ITR 93
Chennai properties and Investments Ltd.Distinguished¶22
Chennai properties and Investments Ltd., (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-III
M/s.S.S.M.Estates Ltd
Vineet Kothari
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
