The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.adyar Gate Hotels Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP The Commissioner of Income tax,Chennai... Appellant in both Appeals -vs- M/s.Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd.,132, TTK Road,Chennai-600 018... Respondent in both Appeals Prayer:- Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated31.07.2012madeinI.T.A.No.1694/Mds/2011 and I.T.A.No.1695/Mds/2011 on the file ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for theassessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09. Against the Appellateorder Commissioner of Income tax,(Appeals)-III Chennai. Dated27/07/2011 and made in ITA.Nos.259&260/2010-2011/A III for theAssessment years 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 and against theAssessment order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,Company Circle I(1) Chennai.34 dated 16-12-2010 and made inPAN/G.I.R.No:AAACA9041 L/Ax1014 for the Assessment year2006/2007 and 2008/2009. For Respondent : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan(In both Appeals) COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals by the appellant/Revenue filed under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act”), are directed against the order dated 31.07.2012,made in I.T.A.No.1694/Mds/2011 and I.T.A.No.1695/Mds/2011 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai(for brevity “the Tribunal”) for the assessment years 2006-07and 2008-09. 2.The appeals were filed raising the following substantialquestions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that therent received from building is to be treated asincome from other source and not income fromhouse property? And 2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that 2%of gross dividend earned alone could be treatedas expenditure relatable to earning of exemptedincome u/s.14A read with Rule 8D and thereafterremitting the matter back to AO for working isnot proper?” 3.Heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant/Revenue and Mr.Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 4.We need not labour much to decide Substantial Question ofLaw No.1, as it has been decided by the Division Bench of thisCourt in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties and InvestmentsLtd., reported in (2005) 274 ITR 117 (Mad). The said decisionwas followed in CIT vs. Tidel Park Ltd. [T.C.A.Nos.732 and 733of 2018 dated 07.07.2020], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was aparty. Thus, by applying the aforementioned decisions,Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answered against theRevenue. 5.Insofar as Substantial Question of Law No.2 is concerned,we find that the Tribunal has only remanded the matter back tothe Assessing Officer for considering afresh. Therefore, wefind there is no substantial question of law as framed arisingfor consideration, insofar as Substantial Question of Law No.2is concerned. 6.In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue aredismissed and Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answeredagainst the Revenue and Substantial Question of Law No.2 is left https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ open, as we are affirming the order of remand passed by theTribunal. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax,(Appeals)-III Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,Company Circle I(1) Chennai.34Company Circle I(1) Chennai.34 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.37915 +1cc to M/s.Subbaray Aiyarpadnam, Advocate, S.R.No.37921 T.C.A.Nos.962 & 963 of 2013 PA(CO)CT(26/08/2021)