TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the head 'income from house property' on the wrong reading of the facts available on record in relation thereto establishing perversity in their order? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, having found that the transaction is a business activity was justified in concluding that the income has to be assessed as "income from house property"? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the stand of the respondent on the assessment of lease income under head 'income from house property' even though it was not a case of letting 'simpliciter' and on the contrary letting with amenities and services, warranting computation under the head 'busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by placing reliance on a decision of this Court in respect of the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02, dismissed the appeals. Challenging the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee preferred further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, following the decision rendered by this Court in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02 reported in 300 ITR 118 dismissed the appeals holding that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the assessment years under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, the Supreme Court pointed out that the mere fact that the assessee had to obtain licence from the Corporation of Calcutta and to maintain sanitary and other services in conformity with the provisions of the Act, by itself, would not enable the assessee to claim that income from letting out of the property was to be treated as "business income". Referring to different heads of income under Section 6 of the 1922 Act, the Apex Court pointed out as under:- " If the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in S.6 the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. The income derived by the company from shops and stalls is income received from property and falls....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty" is to be decided based on the facts of each case. Pointing out to the decision in the case of East India Housing (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) as well as in the case of Karanpura Development Co.Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (1962) 44 ITR 362(SC) and Sultan Brothers (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC), and the reasoning in the decision reported in 42 ITR 49 (East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., Vs. CIT), this Court further held that income from letting out of the property, even in case of company carrying on business in real estate as well as having rental income from the property owned by the assessee has to be assessed as "income from house property". This Court in Chennai Properties case, further pointed out as follows:- "Though it is not cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 11. The Supreme Court in the decision of (1) Universal Plast Ltd., (2) Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax laid down the following ratio :- "(1) no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease, amount, rents, licence fee) received by an assessee from leasing or letting out of assets would fall under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"; (2) it is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be determined from the point of view of a businessman in that business on the facts and in the circumstances of each case, including true interpretation of the agreement under which the assets are let out ; (3) where all the assets of the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not by way of exploitation of business assets, we do not find any ground to accept the contention of the assessee that the nature of business carried on by the assessee would be conclusive of the nature of receipts on the letting of the property. Going by the decision in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC), when the rental income falls within the specific head of income from house property, the mere fact of the assessee having business in letting out the property as stated in its memorandum, by itself, will not conclusively point out that the income is nothing but business income. Even in the case of Commercial Properties Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in (....