Court rules "Konny Building" income as property, not business. Interest liability affirmed.

The court determined that income from the "Konny Building" should be classified as income from property, not business income, even though it was rented out to a bank on a long-term lease. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that letting out a building does not constitute a business activity. Additionally, the court affirmed the liability for interest under sections 234A and 234B based on previous decisions supporting such imposition. All appeals by the assessee were dismissed, and the liability for interest was upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Determination of whether income from "Konny Building" is business income or income from property.
2. Liability for interest under sections 234A and 234B.

Issue 1:
The first issue in the judgment pertains to the nature of income received from the "Konny Building" - whether it should be categorized as business income or income from property. The appellant argued that since the building was rented out to a bank on a long-term lease, it should be considered as business income. However, the court disagreed with this contention, stating that letting out a building on a long-term lease does not constitute a business activity. While income from lodging houses is treated as business income, income from letting out a building to a bank is to be assessed as income from property. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the classification of income from the Konny Building as income from property, not business income.

Issue 2:
The second issue addressed in the judgment concerns the liability for interest under sections 234A and 234B. The court referred to a single Bench decision in Seapearl Enterprises v. Deputy CIT and a Full Bench decision in Parkash Agro Industries v. Deputy CIT, both of which supported the imposition of interest under the relevant sections. The court found no reason to deviate from the views expressed in these decisions and, consequently, dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee. The liability for interest under sections 234A and 234B was thus affirmed based on the precedents cited in the judgment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Kerala High Court provides a detailed overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the final decision on each issue.

---