Property lease with substantial infrastructure and facilities constitutes business income not house property income

The ITAT Delhi held that lease rental receipts from a property with substantial infrastructure and facilities constituted business income rather than income from house property. The assessee leased out property with comprehensive amenities including AC plants, DG sets, lifts, internet lines, and other facilities, which added substantial value beyond mere building occupation. The tribunal found that the user was not merely a tenant but received possession of a complete commercial asset with desired services and amenities. The tax authorities erred in reclassifying the income from business income to rental income, making the disallowance of expenditure and denial of depreciation unsustainable. Both appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of rental income: Whether the rental income received by the assessee should be classified as "income from house property" or "business income."
2. Allowability of expenses: Whether the expenses incurred for providing various services and amenities should be allowed as deductions.
3. Depreciation claim: Whether the depreciation claimed on assets, including those other than the building, should be allowed.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Classification of Rental Income:
The primary issue was whether the rental income received by the assessee from leasing out a commercial complex should be classified as "income from house property" or "business income." The assessee argued that the rental income should be treated as business income because the property was leased out due to a lull in the real estate market and was equipped with various amenities and services, making it a commercial asset. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the property was not merely a building but a commercial complex with substantial infrastructure and services, and thus the rental income should be classified as business income. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. and Universal Plast Ltd. vs. CIT, which emphasized the intention behind leasing out the property and whether it was part of the business activity.

2. Allowability of Expenses:
The assessee claimed various expenses incurred for providing services and amenities as part of the composite rent. The Assessing Officer had disallowed these expenses, treating the rental income as income from house property. The Tribunal, however, allowed these expenses, stating that since the rental income was classified as business income, the expenses incurred for providing services and amenities should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal also noted that even if the rental income were to be classified u/s 56(2)(iii) as "income from other sources," the expenses would still be allowable under section 57(ii) of the Act.

3. Depreciation Claim:
The assessee claimed depreciation on assets, including those other than the building. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation, treating the rental income as income from house property. The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim, stating that since the property was used for business purposes, the depreciation should be allowed. The Tribunal also noted that even if the rental income were to be classified as "income from other sources," depreciation would be allowable under section 57(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Jay Metal Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which allowed depreciation on assets used for earning rental income classified as "income from other sources."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the rental income should be classified as business income, the expenses incurred for providing services and amenities should be allowed as deductions, and the depreciation claimed on assets should be allowed. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.

---