Tarapore & Co. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 April, 2001
"80. The next ground is that the C1T(Appeals) erred in confirming
the disallowance of salary paid to staff at Rs.18,28,252. The learned
Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee received rental
income on house property and also collected amenity charges. The
amenity charges cannot be assessed under the head 'income from
house property' and the same has to be assessed under the head
'Income from other sources'. The Assessee claimed the expenses
Incurred for earning amenity charges. The Assessing Officer treated
the entire income under single head i.e. 'income from house
property' and restricted the expenses as per. sec.24 of the Act. He
submitted that the income has to be assessed under two heads as
above and admissible deduction has to be given. He relied On the
:- 4 -: ITA No.1417/CHNY/2017
judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of
Tarapore & Co. v. CIT reported In 259 1TR 389 and In the case of
Attukal Shopping Complex P. Ltd. v. CIT (259 JTR 567)(Ker.) and the
Asessee's own reported in 227 1TR 325 (Mad) and submitted that
the Department has accepted this method of treatment of income for
the Asst. Year 2002-03 and 2003-04. The learned Departmental
Representative relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals).