ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI V. SHANAYA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 3648/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49246 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 10; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAYA PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3648/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(3)(4), RN 304, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012. VS. SHANAYA ENTERPRISES , 1/2, SARKAR PLAZA, 57, HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI-50. PAN: SSBGD8175K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH, (DR) RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF LD. CIT (A)S ORDER DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2010, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECT ING TO TREAT INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF STUDIO UNDER THE H EAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION INSTE AD OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY NOT RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CARE OF CIT VS. SU LTAN BROTHERS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 51 ITR 353. ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 2 2. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS, SO FAR AS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION ON ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US, ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASS ESSEE IS STATED TO BE CARRYING OUT BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT OF STUDIO FOR PRODUCING TELEVISION SERIALS, ADVERTISEMENT FILMS, SHORT DOCUMENTARIES ETC., IN A S MUCH AS THE PREMISES IS LET OUT, FOR THE SAID PURPOSES, ON HOURLY BASIS FOR A UNIT OF EIGHT HOURS EACH TO PRODUCTION HOUSES. DURING THE COURSE OF SC RUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM SUCH HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED AGGREGATING TO RS.28,89, 573, BUT, IN VIEW OF CLAIM OF SEVERAL EXPENSES TO EARN THESE RECEIPTS, N ET LOSS IS DISCLOSED AT RS. 89,942/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TAXES DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,46,615, AND, ON MOST OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES, NATURE OF RECEIPT IS SHOWN AS RENT. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED T HE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ALL THE RECEIPTS NOT BE TREATED AS RENT AND, ACCORDINGLY, BE TAXED UNDER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESS EE LETS OUT THE PROPERTY ON HOURLY BASIS FOR USE AS SHOOTING LOCATI ON, BUT IT IS NOT A CASE OF RENTING OUT THE PROPERTY SIMPLICITOR. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS INASMUCH AS EXISTING FURNITURE AND FIXTURES IN THE PREMISES HAVE TO BE M ODIFIED TO SUIT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLIENTS, FROM TIME TO TIME, AND TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 3 PROPS, THAT A SEPARATE METER IS PROVIDED FOR RECOR DING CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY ON HOURLY BASIS, THAT SECURITY ARRANGEM ENTS HAVE TO BE PUT IN PLACE FOR ENSURING SAFETY OF CINEMA PHOTOGRAPHIC EQ UIPMENT, THAT TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND FRAMEWORKS HAVE TO BE SET UP SO AS T O ENABLE CLIENT TO ERECT THE NECESSARY PROPS AND SHEDS, THAT THE FACILITIES OF PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, CARPENTERS AND PAINTERS ETC., HAVE TO BE PROVIDED A S PER CLIENT REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT CONSIDERABLE MARKETING ACTIVITIES HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO SELL THE STUDIO TIME TO PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS. THE ASSESSEE A LSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF CLIENTS SO AS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STUDIO FACILI TIES HAVE BEEN USED BY FILM INDUSTRY, TV INDUSTRY AND GENERALLY MEDIA AND BROAD CASTING INDUSTRY. NONE OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER, IMPRESSED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT, ON THE ABOVE FACTS, ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS LTD . ( 263 ITR 143 ), BECAUSE IF IT IS FOUND THAT MAIN INTENTION IS FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THER EOF, THE SAME MUST BE CONSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME OR INCOME FROM PROPERTY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DET AILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY, TO VARIOUS OCCUPANTS ACCORDING TO THE LIST OF OCCUPANTS, ARE NOT SEPARAT ELY CHARGED AND THE RENT PAYABLE IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL CHARGES TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN PROCEEDED TO REFER TO HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT ( 51 ITR 353 ) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- IN THE CASE OF M/S SULTAN BROTHERS PVT. LTD. VS. CI T [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), A FIVE JUDGES BENCH OF THE APEX COURT HE REIN GAVE A GUIDELINE THAT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION OF NATURE OF ANY RECEIPTS ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 4 ATTACHED TO A PROPERTY. THE TEST COMPRISES OF THRE E QUESTIONS, NAMELY (A) WAS IT THE INTENTION IN MAKING THE LEASEAND IT MAT ERS NOT WHETHER THERE IS ONE LEASE OR TWO, I.E., SEPARA TE LEASES IN RESPECT OF THE FURNITURE AND BUILDINGTHAT THE T WO SHOULD BE ENJOYED TOGETHER? (B) WAS IT THE INTENTION TO MAKE THE LETTING OF THE TWO PRACTICALLY ONE LETTING? (C) WOULD ONE HAVE BEEN LET ALONE, AND A LEASE OF IT AC CEPTED, WITHOUT THE OTHER? IF THE ANSWERS TO THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS ARE IN TH E AFFIRMATIVE AND THE LAST IN THE NEGATIVE, THEN IT HAS TO BE HEL D THAT THE LETTINGS WOULD BE INSEPARABLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ANSWERS OF THE FIRST TWO Q UESTIONS ARE IN AFFIRMATIVE AND THE LAST IN THE NEGATIVE. THE ASSE SSEE WAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS SOME INFRASTRUCTURE GIVEN TO THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT WITHOUT THE SAID FA CILITIES, THE PREMISES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LET IN THE FIRST PLACE . THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS TOTALLY APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. AS REGARDS ASSESSEE IN CONTENTION THAT STUDIO BU SINESS ACTIVITIES ARE ACTIVITIES IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER, ASSESSING OFFICE R SIMPLY BRUSHED THEM ASIDE BY STATING THAT THE CONTENTION IS GENERAL IN NATURE. ON THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE IS RENDERING COMPLEX SERVICES, THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS PROCEEDED TO TAX RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY, AND RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTIONS TO 30% OF CHARGES RECEIVE D AS FOR REPAIRS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BE FORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBS ERVING AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 5 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF THE BUNGALOW/ST UDIO ISNT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS HELD BY THE AO. IN THE CASE OF SHABVHU INVT. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, THE PREMISES WHERE LET OUT ON MONTHLY RENT BASIS FOR PROVIDING TABLE SPACE TO THE OCCUPANTS. IN THAT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST-FREE D EPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF ENTIRE COST OF THE PROPERTY, WHEREAS IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS CLAIMED THAT NO DEPOSIT IS RECEIVED BY IT. IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVT. LTD, THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THA T PROPERTY WAS NOT COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF COS T OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS IS NOT SO. THE GIVING ON HIRE THE BUNGALOW INTERMITTENTLY FOR A BRIEF PER IOD BASED ON NUMBER OF HOURS WITH FULL FACILITIES FOR THE PURPOS E OF CREATING PANORAMA CONCEPT IS A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. THUS TO MY MIND, THE APPELLANT IS EXPLOITING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY WAS OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND IN THAT EVENT IT MUST BE HE LD AS BUSINE3SS INCOME AS HELD IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAMBH U INVESTMENTS P. LTD. VS. CIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT RECEIVED ANY DEPOSIT FROM ITS CLIENTS, THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT THE SAID PROPERTY FOR EARNI NG THE INCOME. THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED SERVICE TAX REGISTRATION FOR THE INCOME EARNED FROM HIRING OUT OF BUNGALOW/STUDIO, IT BECOM ES QUITE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIA L ACTIVITIES OF EARNING OF SUCH INCOME. THE AO, IS THEREFORE, D IRECTED TO TREAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 28,89,573 /- AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND NOT TO TREAT THE SAME AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED BY THE S TAND SO TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT (A), AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, BUT NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CA SE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 6 7. WE FIND THAT IN CIT VS. SHAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. LTDS CASE (249 ITR 7) , WHICH WAS APPROVED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN JU DGMENT REPORTED AT 263 ITR AT PAGE 143, THEIR LORDSHIPS HA D AN OCCASION TO ELABORATELY DEAL WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON WHETHE R RENTAL INCOME COULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROFITS, AND THEIR LO RDSHIPS CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: TAKING A SUM TOTAL OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, IT CLE ARLY APPEARS THAT MERELY BECAUSE INCOME IS ATTACHED TO A NY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE THE SOLE FACTOR FOR AS SESSMENT OF SUCH INCOME AS INCOME FROM PROPERTY; WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHIL E EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY. IF IT IS FOUND, APPLYING SUCH TEST, THAT MAIN INTENTION IS FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY , OR ANY PART THEREOF, THE SAME MUST BE CONSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME OR INCOME FROM PROPERTY. IN CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE MAIN INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY W AY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, IN THAT EVENT, IT MU ST BE HELD AS BUSINESS INCOME. 8. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT WHEN A PROPERTY IS EXPLOIT ED BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, INCOME SO EARNED BY EXPLOIT ING THE PROPERTY IS TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. VIEWED IN THIS PERSPECTI VE, AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF SIMPLICITOR RENTING OF PREMISES BUT SIGNIFICANT VALUE ADDITION TO PREMISES BY PROVIDING ALL INCIDEN TAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO FACILITATE CINE SHOOTING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES, THE INCOME IS EARNED BY COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WHICH CAN ONLY BE TAX ED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE FACT THAT IT IS CLEARLY A COM MERCIAL ADVENTURE, INVOLVING MARKETING AND PROMOTIONS AS ALSO APPROPRI ATE IMPROVISATIONS ON A CASE TO CASES BASIS, TAKES THESE RECEIPTS OUT OF T HE AMBIT OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY INCOME. SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS CLA SSIFICATION OF THE NATURE ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 7 OF PAYMENTS IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES, NOTHING ON TUR NS ON THE SAME BECAUSE THE NATURE OF PAYMENT, AS THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED, NEED NOT BE THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT AS IN THE CASE OF THE PA YER. THAT APART, IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT DEFINITION OF RENT IN SECTION 194 I IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF TAXABILITY OF THE RELATED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CI T (A) THUS DO NO CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 9. A LOT OF EMPHASIS HAS BEEN LAID, BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, ON HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROT HERS ( SUPRA), BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS HOW DOES IT ADVANCE HIS CAUSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER WHILE SETTING OUT THE FACT S, HAS REFERRED TO THIS JUDGEMENT AND CLAIMED TO HAVE APPLIED THE RATIO OF THE SAME. AS A MATTER OF FACTS, THE PRECISE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS (SUPRA), THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE IMPUGNED RELIEF. THE STAN D OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS ALSO GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS DEVOID OF ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS, FOR MORE REASONS THAN ONE. FIRSTLY, HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS LTD. ( SUPRA ), WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND WHICH CLEARLY SETTLES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS (SUPRA) AND YET REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT WHERE COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ARE INVOLVED IN EXPLOITING A PROPERTY, INCOME CAN ONLY BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THERE IS THUS NO CONF LICT BETWEEN THESE TWO ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 8 JUDGMENTS; QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, SHAMBHU INVESTMEN TS (SUPRA) JUDGMENT MERELY FOLLOWS LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS. SECONDLY, IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BR OTHERS (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE IN SEISIN OF A CASE IN WHICH NO SERVICES WERE BEING RENDERE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO BUSINESS AT ALL, AND THE TRUE QUESTION WAS UNDER WHICH HEAD INCOME FROM RENTAL WAS TO BE TAXED WHEN BUILDING IS LET OUT WITH FURNITURE AND FILLINGS. THE ASSESSEES PL EA THAT IT SHOULD BE TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT ANYWAY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE HIGH COURT EITHER, WAS REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD ITSELF, AND THEN THEIR LORDSHIPS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR AS INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD, IN THIS CASE, CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THESE (LEASE COVENANTS) DO NOT AT ALL SHOW THAT LESSER WAS RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN THE HOTEL BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE LESSEE, OR IN FACT DOING ANY BUSINESS AT ALL. ON THE FACTS OF THIS, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE LETTING OUT OF THE BUILDING AMOUNTED TO THE DOING OF BUSINESS. THE INCOME UNDER THE LEASE CANNOT, THEREF ORE, BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE IT ACT AS THE INCOME OF A B USINESS . THESE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT ARE IN SHARP CONTRAST WITH OUR FINDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS A CTIVELY, AND ON DAY TO DAY BASIS, ENGAGED IN ORGANIZED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND IS RENDERING SIGNIFICANT SERVICES. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT WERE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THUS CLEARLY IN ERROR IN APPLYING THESE OBSERVATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN UN RELATED QUESTION. FINALLY, ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 9 THE DISPUTE IN SULTAN BROTHERS CASE (SUPRA), WHICH WAS FINALLY ADJUDICATED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WAS NOT WHETHER AN INCOME IS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY, BUT THE ISSUE REALLY WAS WHETHER THE INCOME FROM GI VING A HOTEL, ALONG WITH FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAVE NO RELEVANCE IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION WHETHER INCOME COULD BE TAXED UNDER TH E HEAD BUSINESS INCOME OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . REVENUE THUS DOES NOT GAIN ANYTHING FROM REFERENCE TO HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS JUDGMENT (SUPRA) EITHER. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRELY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. C IT (A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- VIJAY PAL RAO PRAMOD KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011. OKK* ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-2007: 10 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XXX, MUMB AI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CONCERNED 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH J, MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI