Rental income from commercial properties taxable as business income, not house property, allowing expenses and depreciation u/s 28

ITAT Delhi held that rental income earned from the assessee's commercial properties is taxable as "Business income" and not under the head "House Property." The Tribunal noted that the properties were held as commercial assets and actually exploited for business purposes, contrary to the Tax Authorities' view that the assessee was merely earning passive rental income. Consequently, the reclassification of income by the Tax Authorities was found erroneous. The disallowance of related business expenditure and denial of depreciation were held unsustainable, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether rental income from leasing of commercial properties, held and exploited as commercial assets in the course of business of promotion, construction, development and sale of real estate projects, is assessable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or under the head "Income from house property".

1.2 Consequent upon the characterization of rental income, whether depreciation on building and on assets other than building, and other related business expenditure, is allowable as business deduction or liable to be disallowed on the footing that the income is "Income from house property".

1.3 Whether, in view of prior decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years on identical facts, the lower authorities were justified in changing the head of income and disallowing depreciation and other expenditure.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Head of income for rental from leasing of commercial properties

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal, through the order relied upon by the appellate authority, noted and distinguished the judgment concerning "East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd." in light of the decision in "CIT vs. Velankanni Information System (P) Ltd.", wherein it was observed that mere ownership and collection of rent, without commercial exploitation, leads to income being treated as "house property", but a different result follows where the property is held and exploited as a commercial asset for business purposes.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The appellate authority found, by placing reliance on earlier Tribunal orders in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years on the same factual pattern, that the assessee had established the following: (i) the properties in question were held as commercial assets; and (ii) such properties were exploited for business purposes and not merely for passive enjoyment or collection of rent.

2.3 Applying the ratio as discussed from "Velankanni Information System (P) Ltd.", as distinguished from "East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.", the appellate authority and the Tribunal concluded that the income in question bore the character of business income because the properties formed part of the business apparatus of the assessee and were commercially exploited in the course of its business activities.

2.4 The Tribunal held that the tax authorities committed an error in recharacterizing the rental income as "Income from house property" instead of "Business income" when the factual position and the nature of exploitation of the assets had already been accepted and decided in earlier years in favour of the assessee.

Conclusions

2.5 Rental income from the commercial properties, held as commercial assets and exploited for business purposes by the assessee, is taxable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", and not under the head "Income from house property".

Issue 2: Allowability of depreciation and other business expenditure

Interpretation and reasoning

2.6 Having upheld the characterization of the receipts as business income, the Tribunal, following its earlier decision as reproduced and relied upon by the appellate authority, held that disallowance of depreciation and other expenditure was a direct consequence of the erroneous change of head of income by the Assessing Officer.

2.7 It was noted that once the properties and related assets were accepted as commercial assets used for business purposes, depreciation on building and on other assets utilized in the business, as well as other business expenses incurred in relation to such business activity, could not be denied.

2.8 The Tribunal affirmed the finding that the tax authorities "have fallen in error in changing the head of income from 'Business income' to 'Rental income' and accordingly the disallowance of expenditure and denial of depreciation on this account is not sustainable".

Conclusions

2.9 Depreciation on building and on assets other than building, and other related business expenditure, is allowable as deduction under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"; the disallowances made by treating the income as "Income from house property" are unsustainable and stand deleted.

Issue 3: Effect of earlier Tribunal decisions in assessee's own case

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The appellate authority found that the matter had already been decided in favour of the assessee for earlier assessment years with identical facts, and that the issues in dispute stood covered by the Tribunal's prior order.

2.11 The Tribunal, explicitly noting that "the issues are covered in favour of the assessee" by its earlier order for preceding years on the same facts, held that there was no justification to depart from that view and, "respectfully following" the prior decision, declined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority.

Conclusions

2.12 In view of the consistency of facts and the binding effect of the earlier Tribunal orders in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision and dismissed the Revenue's grounds, confirming that the income is assessable as business income and that the related depreciation and expenditure are allowable.

---