Ita/105/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Toyota Techno Park Ind (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF APRIL 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.105/ 2012 BETWEEN 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IILCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROADCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE| 2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI EI SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND M/S TOYOTA TECHNO PARK IND (P) LTDPLOT NO.20, BIDADI, INDUSTRIAL AREARAMANAGARAM DIST .. RESPONDENT | (BY SMT VANI H, ADV.,)- THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISINGOUT OF ORDER DATED 28/12/2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1/7/ BANG /2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO:l..FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS|OFLAWSTATEDTHEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE.ITAT DATED 28/12/2011 IN ITA NO.17/BANG/2011 TO THE EXTENT.QUESTIONED THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, Dilip B. Bhosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: Tnis Income Tax Appeal is directed against the orderdated 28.12.2011 passed by tne Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ in ITA No.1/7/Bang/2011pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the.appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed and theorder dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of.Income-Tax (Appeals) (for short the ‘appellate authority’),Mysore, has been confirmed. The appellate authority has|reversed the order passed by the assessing officer dated28.17.7009. 2).Learned counsel for the revenue, fairly statesthough technically two questions of law are formulated in|the memorandum of appeal by the revenue, the firstquestion of law only deserves consideration. The first|question of law formulated by the revenue reads thus: “tL,Whether, on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the tribunal was correct in holdingtnat|rentalincomerecelVvedfromthe. occupants of the industrial park is assessable|under the head ‘business or professional|income even when the assessing authority|nad rigntly assessed the income from leasing|of buildings under the head income from.house property and income from lease of.macninery under income from otner sources.as per the provisions of I.T. Act’? 3.Mrs.Vani H. learned counsel appearing for therespondent-assessee, at the out set, invites our attention to the order dated 18.03.2014 passed by this Court in ITA)No.30/2009 and connected matters, submits that thesubstantial question of law raised in those appeals and inthe present appeal are identical and same deserves to be)answered in favour of the assessee in terms of that order. ©Having confronted with this, learned counsel for the}revenue does not dispute the submission made by learned|counsel for the respondent and he fairly states that this)appeal also can be disposed of in terms of the order dated18.03.2014, answering the question of law in favour of theassessee and against the revenue.| 4In the circumstances,we dispose of this| appealin terms of the order dated 18.03.2014 passed in|ITA No.30/2009 and connected matters, answering thequestion of law raised in this appeal in favour of theassessee and against tne revenue. No order as to costs. TL| Sd/-JUDGE| Sd/-JUDGE|