MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5650/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mrs. Alka Pandey, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues revolved around the classification of rental income from leasing a building and amenities to Kotak Mahindra Bank, and the corresponding deductions claimed under section 24(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had treated some of the income as 'income from other sources' and denied the standard deduction of 30% on certain amenity charges. The Tribunal examined whether the income from the amenities should be classified under 'income from house property' or 'income from other sources'.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32107 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Suguna Kapur vs. ACIT, Shambhu Investment vs. CIT, Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. A.S.Jaya Kumar
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUKHE.
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA MAHESHWARI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Maitri – Plot No. 10, JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400049. Vs. Asst. CIT-25(2), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AGEPP 1076 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Aditya Maheshwari, CA Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salukhe. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 29/01/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred in adding Rs.161,704/- the same being reimbursement for expense incurred. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred treating Rs.2,479,680/ income from house property and disallowing u/s 24(a) on the same. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not allowing standard deduction of 30 % amounting Rs.743,904 on amenities charges of Rs.2,479,680/ 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,56,100/ income declared included rental income from leasing of a building and amenities to ‘Kotak Mahindra Bank’. said rental income from ‘building’ and ‘amenities’ under the head ‘income from house property’ and claimed deduction at the rate of thirty percentile against such income. the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction rate of 30% amounting to Rs.7,43,904/ received from amenities Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal befo the grounds as reproduced above. ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 - as unreconciled rent received as per 26AS though being reimbursement for expense incurred. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred treating Rs.2,479,680/- as income from other sources instead of income from house property and disallowing 30% of deduction u/s 24(a) on the same. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not allowing standard deduction of 30 % amounting Rs.743,904 on amenities charges of Rs.2,479,680/- fly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,56,100/ income declared included rental income from leasing of a building amenities to ‘Kotak Mahindra Bank’. The assessee declared said rental income from ‘building’ and ‘amenities’ under the head ‘income from house property’ and claimed deduction at the rate of thirty percentile against such income. The return of income file the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction amounting to Rs.7,43,904/- on the rental income received from amenities which was claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal befo the grounds as reproduced above. Mrs. Alka Pandey 2 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 as unreconciled rent received as per 26AS though 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred treating as income from other sources instead of 30% of deduction 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not allowing standard deduction of 30 % amounting Rs.743,904 on amenities fly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,56,100/-. The income declared included rental income from leasing of a building The assessee declared said rental income from ‘building’ and ‘amenities’ under the head ‘income from house property’ and claimed deduction at the rate of The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction at the on the rental income which was claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act . Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT raising 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 34 comprising of copy of the leave and license agreements for building and 4. As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not press this ground. In view of statement made at bar by the ld counsel, said ground is dismissed as 4.1 In ground No. 2 deduction @ 30% in respect of amenity charges claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act amounting to Rs.7,43,904/ 4.2 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee entered int named ‘Matri’ at Juhu, Mumbai and claimed said rental income under the head income from house property and claimed deduction at the rate of thirty percentile under section 24(a) of the Act, which has been allowed by the AO. Thus, in respect of leave and license agreement dispute. The assessee also entered into amenities agreement for providing (i) space for installation of antenna club sign board;(iii) maintenance. The assessee claimed agreement for amenities ‘income from house property ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 34 comprising of copy of the leave and license for building and utilities /amenities. As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal is concerned, counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not In view of statement made at bar by the ld said ground is dismissed as infructuous. In ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged deduction @ 30% in respect of amenity charges claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act amounting to Rs.7,43,904/- by the lower authorities. The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee entered into a rental agreement for leasing of building ’ at Juhu, Mumbai and claimed said rental income under the head income from house property and claimed deduction at the rate of thirty percentile under section 24(a) of the Act, which d by the AO. Thus, deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act in respect of leave and license agreement of building is not in he assessee also entered into amenities agreement for space for installation of antenna; (ii) space for put up watch and ward securities and maintenance. The assessee claimed that the income under this agreement for amenities was also eligible for assess under income from house property’ and claimed the deduction Mrs. Alka Pandey 3 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 34 comprising of copy of the leave and license is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not wish to In view of statement made at bar by the ld , the assessee has challenged disallowance of deduction @ 30% in respect of amenity charges claimed u/s 24(a) of by the lower authorities. The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the agreement for leasing of building ’ at Juhu, Mumbai and claimed said rental income under the head income from house property and claimed deduction at the rate of thirty percentile under section 24(a) of the Act, which u/s 24(a) of the Act of building is not in he assessee also entered into amenities agreement for space for put up watch and ward securities and (iv) general the income under this eligible for assess under the and claimed the deduction at the rate of 30% in respect of rental income from amenities. However, the Assessing Officer treated the amenities as separable from the building and assessed the same as Ld. CIT(A) concluded that under the amenities agreement, the assessee has generated service income and which is not derived from the ownership of the property. Therefore, he upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer observing as under: “5.5 Conclusion on Agreement Comparison: The Leave and License Agreement and the Amenit purposes, and the income from each is classified differently under the Income Agreement generates rental income, which is taxable as \"Income from House Property\" and is eligible for certain Amenities Agreement, on the other hand, generates service income, which is taxable as \"Income from Other Sources\" and does not benefit from the same deductions. This distinction is crucial for accurately determining the appellant's tax liab and ensuring compliance with tax laws. Since this income is categorized as \"Income from Other Sources,\" it does not qualify for the 30% standard deduction available under Section 24(a) for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income from services rendered, which has different tax implications. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that under the amenities agreement, the assessee has space provided for the antenna and of the property and not be taxed under the head counsel relied on the decision of the Co Tribunal in the case of for assessment year 2009 in the said case is reproduced as under: ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 in respect of rental income from amenities. However, the Assessing Officer treated the amenities as separable from the and assessed the same as ‘income from other sources Ld. CIT(A) concluded that under the amenities agreement, the has generated service income and which is not derived from the ownership of the property. Therefore, he upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer observing as under: 5.5 Conclusion on Agreement Comparison: The Leave and License Agreement and the Amenities Agreement serve distinct purposes, and the income from each is classified differently under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Leave and License Agreement generates rental income, which is taxable as \"Income from House Property\" and is eligible for certain deductions. The Amenities Agreement, on the other hand, generates service income, which is taxable as \"Income from Other Sources\" and does not benefit from the same deductions. This distinction is crucial for accurately determining the appellant's tax liab and ensuring compliance with tax laws. Since this income is categorized as \"Income from Other Sources,\" it does not qualify for the 30% standard deduction available under Section 24(a) for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income om services rendered, which has different tax implications. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that under the amenities agreement, the assessee has received rent for provided for the antenna and Glow sign board not any kind of service, therefore, same should be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources counsel relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suguna Kapur in ITA No. 4 for assessment year 2009-10. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the said case is reproduced as under: Mrs. Alka Pandey 4 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 in respect of rental income from amenities. However, the Assessing Officer treated the amenities as separable from the income from other sources’. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that under the amenities agreement, the has generated service income and which is not derived from the ownership of the property. Therefore, he upheld the finding 5.5 Conclusion on Agreement Comparison: The Leave and ies Agreement serve distinct purposes, and the income from each is classified differently tax Act, 1961. The Leave and License Agreement generates rental income, which is taxable as \"Income deductions. The Amenities Agreement, on the other hand, generates service income, which is taxable as \"Income from Other Sources\" and does not benefit from the same deductions. This distinction is crucial for accurately determining the appellant's tax liability and ensuring compliance with tax laws. Since this income is categorized as \"Income from Other Sources,\" it does not qualify for the 30% standard deduction available under Section 24(a) for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income om services rendered, which has different tax implications.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that received rent for board, which is part therefore, same should income from other sources’. The Ld. ordinate Bench of the Suguna Kapur in ITA No. 4117/Del/2012 The relevant finding of the Tribunal “6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on re deserves to succeed on the issue involved. Copy of agreements are placed on record. At last page of the agreement list of amenities is mentioned. First is electricity connection. It is provided that assessee will provide electricity connection however charges will be paid by the licensee. In second amenities, it is shown that the licensor i.e assessee also permit the licensee to put signage at all the locations at no extra cost and if any permission is required that would be obta list of amenities, we donot understand what service has been provided by the assessee. However, two separate agreements have been made by the assessee: one for rent i.e monthly license fee and another for services of amenities. But as stated above, infact no amenities have been provided by the assessee for which it can be said that the assessee is charging any license fee. The contention of Ld. DR may be correct that these two agreements may be entered for the purpose of savi considered view, character of income cannot be changed either by entering two agreements or by making other evidence. The amount of license fee earned by assessee on account of two agreements infact is on account of property given on license and the entire income of the property, in our considered view, has to be treated as income from house property and not income from other sources which is treated by Assessing Officer for the reason that a separate agreement has been entered on accou provided by assessee. 7. The case laws relied upon by Assessing Officer, are distinguishable as in both of the case separate services were provided by the assessee. One house was given on rent and there were other amenities like furniture conditioning etc. for which separate rent was taken and, therefore, that amount was treated as income from other sources. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as well as Kerala High Court has upheld these contentions. 8. However, in the present case, it is agreements relate to one property without providing any amenities. Providing an electricity connection, it cannot be ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that assessee deserves to succeed on the issue involved. Copy of agreements are placed on record. At last page of the agreement list of amenities is mentioned. First is electricity connection. It is provided that assessee will provide city connection however charges will be paid by the licensee. In second amenities, it is shown that the licensor i.e assessee also permit the licensee to put signage at all the locations at no extra cost and if any permission is required that would be obtained by the licensee. From this list of amenities, we donot understand what service has been provided by the assessee. However, two separate agreements have been made by the assessee: one for rent i.e monthly license fee and another for services of es. But as stated above, infact no amenities have been provided by the assessee for which it can be said that the assessee is charging any license fee. The contention of Ld. DR may be correct that these two agreements may be entered for the purpose of saving house tax. In our considered view, character of income cannot be changed either by entering two agreements or by making other evidence. The amount of license fee earned by assessee on account of two agreements infact is on account of property icense and the entire income of the property, in our considered view, has to be treated as income from house property and not income from other sources which is treated by Assessing Officer for the reason that a separate agreement has been entered on account of amenities provided by assessee. 7. The case laws relied upon by Assessing Officer, are distinguishable as in both of the case separate services were provided by the assessee. One house was given on rent and there were other amenities like furniture conditioning etc. for which separate rent was taken and, therefore, that amount was treated as income from other sources. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as well as Kerala High Court has upheld these contentions. 8. However, in the present case, it is seen that both the agreements relate to one property without providing any amenities. Providing an electricity connection, it cannot be Mrs. Alka Pandey 5 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the submissions and cord, we find that assessee deserves to succeed on the issue involved. Copy of agreements are placed on record. At last page of the agreement list of amenities is mentioned. First is electricity connection. It is provided that assessee will provide city connection however charges will be paid by the licensee. In second amenities, it is shown that the licensor i.e assessee also permit the licensee to put signage at all the locations at no extra cost and if any permission is ined by the licensee. From this list of amenities, we donot understand what service has been provided by the assessee. However, two separate agreements have been made by the assessee: one for rent i.e monthly license fee and another for services of es. But as stated above, infact no amenities have been provided by the assessee for which it can be said that the assessee is charging any license fee. The contention of Ld. DR may be correct that these two agreements may be ng house tax. In our considered view, character of income cannot be changed either by entering two agreements or by making other evidence. The amount of license fee earned by assessee on account of two agreements infact is on account of property icense and the entire income of the property, in our considered view, has to be treated as income from house property and not income from other sources which is treated by Assessing Officer for the reason that a separate nt of amenities 7. The case laws relied upon by Assessing Officer, are distinguishable as in both of the case separate services were provided by the assessee. One house was given on rent and there were other amenities like furniture and air- conditioning etc. for which separate rent was taken and, therefore, that amount was treated as income from other sources. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as well as Kerala seen that both the agreements relate to one property without providing any amenities. Providing an electricity connection, it cannot be said that in regular services, has been provided by the assessee. Charges of electricity has been paid by licensee and not by assessee. 9. Before, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Investment, the facts were that the assessee owned a movable property. It occupied a proportion of property and let out the rest to be used as table space to occupants with furniture, lights and air services like watch and ward staff, electricity and water and other common amenities. The monthly rent was payable inclusive of all charges. The assessee had also recovered by way of security from the oc Hon'ble High Court held that income from the property was assessable in the hands of the assessee’s income from house property. The assessee preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal hol interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble High Court. Whatever the common services and amenities were provided that were treated as linked with the rental income and accordingly entire income was treated as inc house property. 10. In the case, in hand also the assessee though has entered two agreements but they related to the same property and whatever the amount is received, in our considered view is to be treated as income from house property and not 11. In case of Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd. 162 ITR 452, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has decided similar issue in which it was held as under: of the agreements, gleaned from a reading of all parts thereof, was that the tenants were given thereby only the facility of utilizing the product of the installation, viz., the cold or conditioned air. There was no letting of the installation to the tenants. There being no letting of the installation, the requ been met. Accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from the premises under the leases could not be taxed under the head of income from other sources but must be taxed as income from property.” ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 said that in regular services, has been provided by the assessee. Charges of electricity has been paid by licensee not by assessee. 9. Before, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Investment, the facts were that the assessee owned a movable property. It occupied a proportion of property and let out the rest to be used as table space to occupants with , lights and air-conditioners. The assessee provides services like watch and ward staff, electricity and water and other common amenities. The monthly rent was payable inclusive of all charges. The assessee had also recovered by way of security from the occupants. The Hon'ble High Court held that income from the property was assessable in the hands of the assessee’s income from house property. The assessee preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal holding that there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble High Court. Whatever the common services and amenities were provided that were treated as linked with the rental income and accordingly entire income was treated as inc house property. 10. In the case, in hand also the assessee though has entered two agreements but they related to the same property and whatever the amount is received, in our considered view is to be treated as income from house property and not income from other sources. 11. In case of Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd. 162 ITR 452, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has decided similar issue in which it was held as under:- “that the true purport of the agreements, gleaned from a reading of all parts hereof, was that the tenants were given thereby only the facility of utilizing the product of the installation, viz., the cold or conditioned air. There was no letting of the installation to the tenants. There being no letting of the installation, the requirements of section 56(2)(iii) had not been met. Accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from the premises under the leases could not be taxed under the head of income from other sources but must be taxed as income from property.” Mrs. Alka Pandey 6 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 said that in regular services, has been provided by the assessee. Charges of electricity has been paid by licensee 9. Before, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Investment, the facts were that the assessee owned a movable property. It occupied a proportion of property and let out the rest to be used as table space to occupants with conditioners. The assessee provides services like watch and ward staff, electricity and water and other common amenities. The monthly rent was payable inclusive of all charges. The assessee had also cupants. The Hon'ble High Court held that income from the property was assessable in the hands of the assessee’s income from house property. The assessee preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also ding that there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble High Court. Whatever the common services and amenities were provided that were treated as linked with the rental income and accordingly entire income was treated as income from 10. In the case, in hand also the assessee though has entered two agreements but they related to the same property and whatever the amount is received, in our considered view is to be treated as income from house 11. In case of Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd. 162 ITR 452, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has decided similar “that the true purport of the agreements, gleaned from a reading of all parts hereof, was that the tenants were given thereby only the facility of utilizing the product of the installation, viz., the cold or conditioned air. There was no letting of the installation to the tenants. There being no letting of the irements of section 56(2)(iii) had not been met. Accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from the premises under the leases could not be taxed under the head of income from other sources but must be 12. The ratio of Bombay High Court squarely applicable on the facts of present case. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs A.S.Jaya Kumar 215 ITR 422. 13. In view of the above facts and view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court and also Madras High Court, we are of the considered view that entire amount received by assessee on account of two separate agreements is to be treated as incom direct the Assessing Officer to treat the entire consideration, as income from house property. We order accordingly. 5.1 We find that in the said case also amenities in the nature of providing permission for licensee to put glow sign the service provided by the assessee building property. We also find that the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of vs ACIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 220 ( Mumbai Trib) held that income earned by the assessee on account of renting out of terrace for purpose of installation of the antenna tower was taxable as income from house property. us also following four of the amenities agreement which is available on Paper Book page 14 to 18: The Licensors shall provide the following facilities/amenities to the Licensee at no extra ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 12. The ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and Hon'ble Bombay High Court squarely applicable on the facts of present case. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs A.S.Jaya Kumar 215 ITR 422. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court and also Madras High Court, we are of the considered view that entire amount received by assessee on account of two separate agreements is to be treated as income from house property. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the entire consideration, as income from house property. We order accordingly. We find that in the said case also amenities in the nature of permission for electricity connection and permitting the glow sign at the location, has been held the service provided by the assessee and part of rental income from We also find that the coordinate bench of the he case of Maker Tower Premises Co- vs ACIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 220 ( Mumbai held that income earned by the assessee on account of renting out of terrace for purpose of installation of the antenna tower was ome from house property. In the instant case before us also following four kinds of services are referred in the Schedule of the amenities agreement which is available on Paper Book page SCHEDULE (Details of the facilities/amenities) Licensors shall provide the following facilities/amenities to the Licensee at no extra cost: Mrs. Alka Pandey 7 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and Hon'ble Bombay High Court squarely applicable on the facts of present case. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs A.S.Jaya circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court and also Madras High Court, we are of the considered view that entire amount received by assessee on account of two separate agreements is to be e from house property. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the entire consideration, as income from house property. We order accordingly.” We find that in the said case also amenities in the nature of electricity connection and permitting the , has been held not to be and part of rental income from We also find that the coordinate bench of the -op society Ltd vs ACIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 220 ( Mumbai- held that income earned by the assessee on account of renting out of terrace for purpose of installation of the antenna tower was In the instant case before of services are referred in the Schedule of the amenities agreement which is available on Paper Book page Licensors shall provide the following facilities/amenities 1. Space for installation of V appropriate place. 2. Allow Licensee to put its Glow Sign Boards at mutually agreed appropriate places. 3. Watch and Ward & 4. General Maintenance Licensor 5.2 Respectfully, following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the amenities installation of antenna and to nature of the services but are in the nature of the rent for providing space which is part of the building and therefore, corresponding rent is eligible to be taxed under the head property’. However, in respect of and ‘general maintenance cannot be treated as part of the building and land appurtenant there to from providing space for antenna and glow sign has not been identified separately in agreement, matter back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for the rental towards space for installation and glow sing and allow the said part of the rental income to be taxed under the h income from house property. The balance part of the rent related to watch and ward security and general maintenance is directed to be taxed under the head separate from the ownership of the ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 Space for installation of V-sat Antenna at an appropriate place. Allow Licensee to put its Glow Sign Boards at mutually agreed appropriate places. Watch and Ward & Security. General Maintenance Respectfully, following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the amenities in the nature of providing space of antenna and to put up glow sing board are not in the s but are in the nature of the rent for providing space which is part of the building and therefore, corresponding rent is eligible to be taxed under the head ‘income from house . However, in respect of ‘watch and ward general maintenance’ which are in the nature of service and cannot be treated as part of the ‘rental income land appurtenant there to. Since the rental income from providing space for antenna and glow sign has not been d separately in agreement, we feel appropriate to matter back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for determing the rental towards space for installation and glow sing and allow the said part of the rental income to be taxed under the h income from house property. The balance part of the rent related to watch and ward security and general maintenance is directed to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources separate from the ownership of the building and land a Mrs. Alka Pandey 8 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 sat Antenna at an Allow Licensee to put its Glow Sign Boards at Respectfully, following the above decision, we are of the providing space for put up glow sing board are not in the s but are in the nature of the rent for providing space which is part of the building and therefore, corresponding income from house watch and ward’ and ‘security’ which are in the nature of service and rental income’ in respect of Since the rental income from providing space for antenna and glow sign has not been feel appropriate to restore the determing bifurcation of the rental towards space for installation and glow sing and allow the said part of the rental income to be taxed under the head income from house property. The balance part of the rent related to watch and ward security and general maintenance is directed to be income from other sources’ being services building and land appurtenant there to. The ground No accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/01/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 The ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 29/01 Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mrs. Alka Pandey 9 ITA No. 5650/MUM/2024 . 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee are In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /01/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "