Business income characterisation for lease receipts upheld, permitting set-off against brought forward losses under the tax code.

Whether lease receipts from letting a textile factory constituted business income for set-off under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act was resolved by applying the factual test of characterisation: if assets retained their commercial character and the lessee exploited them in the same trade, receipts are business income; if the assessee had unequivocally ceased the business, receipts would be capital. The Tribunal found on evidence (lease terms, retention of business character, and continuance of manufacturing activity through the lessee) that the receipts arose from carrying on the textile business; HC affirmed that factual finding, allowing set-off against brought-forward losses.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sums realised by leasing out the factory (Rs. 73,800 for AY 1951-52 and Rs. 3,84,000 for AY 1952-53) constituted income from business such that they could be set off against losses of the manufacture of textiles under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act?

Analysis: The determination whether income is business income or income from capital assets is a question of fact turning on whether the assets retained the character of business/commercial assets and whether the activity constituted carrying on the same business (even if through another instrumentality). Where assets are used as business assets by permitting a lessee to exploit them in the same line of activity, the receipts may be business income. Contrariwise, if the assessee has unequivocally ceased to carry on the business and the assets have ceased to be business assets, receipts would be income from capital assets. The Tribunal found on the evidence that the leased plants and machinery remained business assets and that the assessee carried on the business by allowing the lessee to operate the assets; the High Court's role is confined to examining whether there was evidence to justify that finding. The relevant lease terms (duration, renewal option, purchase option, assistance obligations, and accommodation for lessors) are pieces of evidence to be weighed but do not compel only one conclusion; the liquidator's status and liquidation do not, per se, preclude carrying on business. The Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the receipts arose from the carrying on of the same textile-manufacturing business.

Conclusion: The sums realised by leasing out the factory for the assessment years specified were income from carrying on the business of manufacturing textiles and could be set off against the brought-forward losses under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act; question answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

---