Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai v. Ticel Bio Park Limited
[Citation -2020-LL-0825-27]

Citation 2020-LL-0825-27
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai
Respondent Name Ticel Bio Park Limited
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/08/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income from business • claim of deduction • profits derived • rental income • lease rental
Bot Summary: In Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 developer himself or to a third party and not applicable for rented property 5.The learned Standing Counsel for the department has submitted that the lease rental received by the respondent/assessee will not constitute income from the business and it is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal, without considering the case on merits, has dismissed the appeal as under:- 3. While deciding this issue, the Tribunal, following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Elnet Technologies Ltd. in Tax Case No.391 and 392 of 2007 dated 15.10.2012, has observed as follows:- 7. Proceeding to decide this question, we find from the case law cited by the assessee in CIT vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd. that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has settled the very issue in favour of the concerned assessee and against the Revenue in its arguments. No distinguishing features have either been pointed out by the Revenue nor they emanate from the facts of the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has pointed out that the case on hand is covered by the Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Elnet Technologies Ltd. in Tax Case No.391 and 392 of 2007 dated 15.10.2012 and in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. He submitted that this Court, following the aforesaid two Judgments, has passed a detailed order in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. M/s.Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd., in TCA.Nos. The issue involved in the case on hand is no longer res-integra and it is already covered by the Judgment of this Court rendered in the above said Judgments as stated by the respondent/assessee. 9.In the result, this Tax Case Appeal No.1035 of 2015 is dismissed.


Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.08.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.1035 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600034. Appellant Versus M/s.Ticel Bio Park Limited, No.5, Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113. Respondent PAN: AABCT 5758 L Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.05.2015 in ITA No.257/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, for Mrs.V.Puspha, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatnarayanan, for Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanaban JUDGMENT (Judgment of Court was delivered by KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.) Court was held by Video Conference, as per Resolution of Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and counsel, staff of Court appearing from their respective residences. 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 2. This tax case appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, dated 15.05.2015 in I.T.A.No.257/Mds/ 2015. 3.Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel appeared for department/appellant and Mr.R.Venkatnarayanan, learned counsel appeared for respondent/assessee. 4. appellant filed present appeal and suggested following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that lease rent income from providing build up lab space or industrial use to various lesses would constitute income from business and was eligible for deduction u/s 80IA? 2.Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate was right in allowing claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) when provisions of section 80IA(4)(iii) are applicable only for profits derived out of development and sale of built up space to person operating maintaining said space either 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 developer himself or to third party and not applicable for rented property? 5.The learned Standing Counsel for department has submitted that lease rental received by respondent/assessee will not constitute income from business and it is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. learned counsel also contended that Tribunal, without considering case on merits, has dismissed appeal as under:- 3. After hearing both sides, we are of opinion that similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.2123/Mds/2011, dated 2.4.2013, wherein deduction u/s.80IA(4 )(iii) of Act was granted to assessee on income earned from let out of built up lab space by providing infrastructure facilities. While deciding this issue, Tribunal, following judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Elnet Technologies Ltd. in Tax Case (Appeal) No.391 and 392 of 2007 dated 15.10.2012, has observed as follows:- "7. We have heard both sides, perused orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). After giving thoughtful consideration to rival contentions, in backdrop of facts stated hereinabove, we are of view that precise question involved in appeal is as to whether assessee, who has raised rental income etc. by providing infrastructure facilities in industrial part is entitled for deduction under 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 section 80lA (4)(iii) or not. Proceeding to decide this question, we find from case law cited by assessee in CIT vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd. (supra) that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has settled very issue in favour of concerned assessee and against Revenue in its arguments. No distinguishing features have either been pointed out by Revenue nor they emanate from facts of case. Accordingly, we confirm findings of CIT(A) under challenge." In view of this, we are inclined to hold that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IA(4 )(iii) of Act. He, therefore, contended that Tribunal has not considered case on merits and prayed for setting aside order passed by Tribunal. 6. On other hand, learned counsel for respondent/assessee has pointed out that case on hand is covered by Judgment of this Court rendered in case of CIT v. Elnet Technologies Ltd. in Tax Case (Appeal) No.391 and 392 of 2007 dated 15.10.2012 and in case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. He submitted that this Court, following aforesaid two Judgments, has passed detailed order in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. M/s.Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd., in TCA.Nos.314&315 of 2017, dated 27.07.2020, and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of present appeal. 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 7. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for appellant/department as well as learned Counsel appearing for respondent/assessee and perused materials available on record. 8. issue involved in case on hand is no longer res-integra and it is already covered by Judgment of this Court rendered in above said Judgments as stated by respondent/assessee. Therefore, we do not see any question of law arising for our consideration in present appeal. views of authorities below are correct and in accordance with law and do not call for any interference. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 9.In result, this Tax Case Appeal No.1035 of 2015 is dismissed. No costs. [V.K., J.] [K.R., J.] 25.08.2020 Index :yes/no Internet:yes/no Speaking/Non-Speaking order klt To: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.25.08.2020 in T.C.A No.1035 of 2015 DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J. klt TCA.No.450 of 2017 25.08.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai v. Ticel Bio Park Limited
Report Error