ITAT allows depreciation claims for income from leasing amenities, distinguishes from precedent.

The ITAT overturned the lower authorities' decisions and directed the AO to treat income from leasing amenities and infrastructure as business income, allowing depreciation claims to the assessee. The ITAT distinguished the case from a previous Supreme Court decision and referred to relevant case law to support its decision.

---

---

Issues:
- Treatment of income from leasing of furniture, fixtures, plant, machinery, and others as income from house property instead of business income.
- Disallowance of depreciation on the same amount.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order treating income from leasing as income from house property instead of business income. The assessee was involved in real estate business and received income from leasing properties and amenities. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the income as house property income, disallowing depreciation. The AO relied on a Supreme Court decision in Shambhu Investment Ltd case.

2. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the income primarily came from property exploitation, not complex commercial activities, thus taxable as house property income. The CIT(A) referred to relevant case laws supporting this decision.

3. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the income from amenities and infrastructure should be treated as business income, as in previous years. The assessee had separate agreements for leasing properties and amenities. The ITAT considered the agreements and items leased, concluding that the income should be treated as business income. The ITAT referred to the Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd case to support its decision.

4. The ITAT disagreed with the previous decisions, distinguishing the present case from the Shambhu Investment case. The ITAT directed the AO to treat the income from amenities and infrastructure as business income and allow depreciation claims to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, overturning the lower authorities' decisions.

---