Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rent received by letting out a dyeing plant, which had remained idle because the assessee could not use it in its own business, constituted profits from business and was chargeable to excess profits tax.
Analysis: The decisive test was whether the plant was, at the time of letting, still a commercial asset capable of being used in the assessee's business. Income derived from a commercial asset remains business income whether the assessee uses it himself or allows another to use it, so long as the asset continues to be available as a commercial asset. But where the asset has ceased to be usable in the business and is let out only because the assessee cannot employ it in his own trade, the rent is not business profit. On the facts, the dyeing plant had become idle owing to wartime difficulty in obtaining silk yarn and had ceased to be a commercial asset for the assessee at the relevant time.
Conclusion: The rental was not profits of the assessee's business and was not liable to excess profits tax as business income.
Ratio Decidendi: Income from a commercial asset is business income only if the asset is capable of being used as part of the assessee's business at the time of exploitation; once the asset has ceased to be a commercial asset in the assessee's hands, rent from its letting is not business profit.