Income from leasing commercial complex deemed business income, not house property. Tribunal cites main object, business activities, and precedents.

The Tribunal held that the income from leasing a commercial complex and providing amenities should be treated as "business income" rather than "income from house property." The Tribunal relied on the assessee's main object in the Memorandum of Association, the systematic business activities, and judicial precedents. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether rental receipts should be assessed under the head "business income" or "income from house property."
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether rental receipts should be assessed under the head "business income" or "income from house property":

The main contention of the Revenue was that the rental income received by the assessee should be taxed under the head "income from house property" as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (A.O) argued that the assessee had let out shops and the income should be considered as "income from house property" regardless of whether the property was held as stock-in-trade or otherwise. The A.O emphasized that the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the assessee did not specifically state renting of immovable property as the main object, unlike in the case of Chennai Properties. The A.O concluded that rental income should be taxed under "income from house property" and receipts from other amenities under "income from other sources."

2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT:

The assessee argued that the rental income should be treated as "business income" based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT. The assessee's MOA included objectives related to acquiring, holding, and leasing properties as part of its business activities. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, stating that the income from leasing should be treated as "business income" and not "income from house property." The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chennai Properties, which supported the assessee's claim.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT:

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT, which emphasized that the nature of income should be determined based on the facts of each case. The Revenue argued that the decision in Raj Dadarkar should apply, where the Supreme Court held that income from leasing out premises should normally be treated as "income from house property" unless the letting out itself is the business of the assessee.

Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal reviewed the facts and arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the assessee's main object, as per its MOA, was to construct and lease properties as part of its business activities. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had constructed a commercial complex and provided various amenities and facilities to the lessees, indicating that the property was being exploited for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the income arising from such systematic and organized activities should be treated as "business income."

The Tribunal further referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. PSTS Heavy Lift and Shift Ltd., which considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Raj Dadarkar & Associates. The High Court held that where the primary intention of the assessee is commercial exploitation of the property, the income should be assessed as "business income." The Tribunal also cited other judicial precedents supporting the view that income from leasing commercial properties with various facilities should be treated as "business income."

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the income earned by the assessee from leasing the commercial complex, along with providing various facilities, constituted business activity. Therefore, the income should be treated as "business income" and not "income from house property." The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Order:

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld. The income earned by the assessee from leasing the commercial complex was to be treated as "business income."

---