Civil Appeal Nos. 6455-60 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015). Case: Raj Dadarkar and Associates Vs ACIT-CC-46. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 6455-60 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) |
| Judges | A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 4, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 44DB, 143, 148, 269UA; Shop and Establishment Act; Indian Partnership Act; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The substantial questions of law which have been raised by the Appellant in these appeals, which were also the questions before the High Court on which High Court has rendered the impugned judgment, are the following:
(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Appellant was owner of the shopping centre within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 27 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income earned by the Appellant from the shopping centre was required to be taxed under the head "income from House Property" instead of the head "Profits and Gains from the Business or Profession" as claimed by the Appellant?
(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order of the Tribunal, confirming the action of the Respondent, is perverse inasmuch as the same is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicions by taking into account incorrect, irrelevant and extraneous consideration while ignoring relevant materials and considerations?
2. Few facts giving the background in which aforesaid questions have arisen for consideration, may first be taken note of. These are recapitulated hereinafter:
The Maharashtra Housing and Developing Authority ("MHADA") had constructed buildings known as Shyam Sunder Cooperative Society, Ram Darshan Cooperative Society and Sindhu Cooperative Society at Jariwala Compound Market, Opposite Navjivan Post Office, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400088. However, there was a reservation for Municipal retail market on the plot: on which MHADA had put up the construction. Therefore, MHADA handed over the ground floor [stilt portion] of the above said buildings and admeasuring around 17,925 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as the "market portion") to Market Department of Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay ("MCGB"). This land was acquired by the MCGB from the MCGB by recovering the necessary cost.
3. In 1993, the Market Department of the MCGB auctioned the market portion on a monthly license [stallage charges] basis to run municipal market. The Appellant firm participated in the auction to acquire the right to conduct the market on the market portion. The Appellant was the successful bidder and was handed over possession of the market portion on 28.05.1993. The terms and conditions subject to which the Appellant was given the said market portion to run and maintain municipal market contained in the terms and conditions of the auction dated 11.03.1993. The premises allotted to the Appellant was a bare structure, on stilt, that is, pillar/column, sans even four walls. In terms of the auction, it was the Appellant who had to make the entire premises fit to be used a market, including construction of walls, construction of entire common amenities like toilet blocks, etc. Accordingly, after taking possession of the premises, the Appellant spent substantial amount on additions/alternations of the entire premises, including demolishing the existing platform and, thereafter, reconstructing the same according to the new plan sanctioned by the MCGB. [Rs. 1,83,61,488/- spent from Financial Year 1993-1994 to 2001-2002] The Appellant constructed 95 shops and 30 stalls of different carpet areas on the premises under the market name "Saibaba Shopping Centre". The Appellant also obtained, in terms of the conditions of the auction, necessary registration certificate for running a business under the Shop and Establishment Act and other licenses/permissions from MCGB and other Government and semi-Government bodies for carrying on trading activities on the said premises. The Appellant firm was responsible for day-to-day maintenance, cleanliness and upkeep of the market premises. The Appellant also had to incur/pay water charges, electricity charges, taxes and repair charges.
Essentially, the Appellant collected the following types of receipt from the sub-licensees:
(a) Compensation from sub-licensees [same rate of stallage charges and on the same terms and condition as given to the Appellant the MCGB].
(b) Leave & License fees.
(c) Service Charges for providing various services, including security charges, utilities, etc.
4. The Appellant filed the returns of income and right from the year 1999 till 2004, it had been offering the income from the aforesaid shops and stalls sub-licensed by it under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The income was also assessed accordingly. However, the case of the Appellant for the Financial Year 1999-2000 was reopened by the Respondent by issuing notice Under Section 148 of the Act and in response to the same the Appellant filed its return on 12.12.2003. Thereafter, notice Under Section 143 of the Act dated 10.01.2005 was issued and served by the Respondent Reassessment order was framed, computed the income from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial