The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Reliance Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6032 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai...Appellant.Vs. M/s. Reliance Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd...Respondent. Mr. A.R.Malhotra for the Appellant. Mr. J. D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raj Darak with Mr. P.C.Tripathi for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 4[th] December, 2012 PC: Two questions of law raised by the revenue in this appeal read thus: a)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in holding that the income from letting out of the Chembur property premises had to be computed/taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession? b)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in directing the A.O. to allow depreciation on building at Chembur? ASN 2)The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 1999-2000. 3)As regards the first question is concerned, the Tribunal by following its decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 has held that the income from letting out Chembur property belonging to the assessee is liable to be assessed under the head Profit and Gains of business. 4) It is not in dispute that the appeals filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT relating to assessment years 1994-94 to 1997-98 have been dismissed by this Court on technical grounds. Similar appeals filed by the revenue relating to assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02 have been dismissed on the ground that the tax effect is less than 4-lacs. Though the Tribunal has taken similar view in assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2003-04, there is nothing on record to suggest that the revenue has filed appeals against those decisions of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the decisions of the Tribunal rendered in favour of the assessee in the assessment years prior to assessment year 1999-2000 and subsequent to assessment year 1999-2000 have attained finality. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)