M/s Kenton Leisure Services Pvt. Ltd, Trivandrum V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tx, Trivandrum

ITA 171/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58222 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN SR ADV
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND SANJAY AROR A, AM I.T.A NOS. 171/COCH/2009 & 291/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 & 2006-07 M/S. KENTON LEISURE SERVICES, P. LTD., TCS EXECUTIVE HOSTEL, ATTINKUZHY, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. [PAN:AABCK 1608G] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV.-AR REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR CO RRIGENDUM PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID APPEALS WAS PASSED ON 30-12-2011. HOWEVER, IT IS FOUND TO BEAR CERTAIN INADVERTENT OM ISSIONS AND/OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS/MISTAKES. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED VIDE THIS CORRIGENDUM, PASSED U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND WHICH DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER IMPACT EITHER THE FINDING/S OR THE RATIO OF THE SAID ORDER , OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT OF COURSE CORRECTING THE SAME. WE ENLIST THE SAME HEREINBELOW:- A) LINE 2, PARA 4.1 : THE WORD NOT MAY BE READ BETWEEN THE WORDS MA Y AND DWELL, SO THAT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SENTENCE WOULD READ AS WE MAY NOT DWELL ON THE SAME HERE . B) LINE 8, PARA 4.4 : THE WORD LEAS IS TO BE READ AS LEASE, SO THAT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SENTENCE WOULD READ AS:- ` THE PREAMBLE TO THE LEASE AGREEMENTS,.. I.T.A. NOS.171/COCH/2009 & 291/COCH/2010 KENTON LEISURE SERVICES (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT, TRIVA NDRUM 2 C) LINE 8, PARA 4.5 : THE WORDS , AND IN OUR VIEW ONLY RIGHTLY SO WO ULD STAND TO BE READ AFTER THE WORDS BY THE REVENUE. D) PARA 5.1 : THE WORD FOR, `AT AND IS MAY BE READ AS AGAI NST THE WORDS OF, `THE AND HAS, OCCURRING AT LINE 3,4 AND 5 OF THE SAID PARA, SO THAT ITS LAST TWO SENTENCES WOULD READ AS: ` THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY SEGREGATION OF THE CONSIDERATION INTO SEPARATE STREAMS. THE ENTIRE INC OME, AT NET OF EXPENSES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES AS A BUSINESS ORGANISATION, IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME . E) LINE 3, PARA 5.2 : THE WORDS `FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CONTRADICTOR Y WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE WORDS `OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND CONTR ARY; THE LATTER BEING INAPPOSITE. SD/- SD /- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 16TH JANUARY, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KENTON LEISURE SERVICES, P. LTD., TCS EXECU TIVE HOSTEL, ATTINKUZHY, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1( 1), TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, TRIV ANDRUM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .