TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07-08 vide order dated 29.12.2009. 2. The appeal, bearing as many as five grounds, raises a single issue, i.e., the assessment of the rental income of Rs. 934.34 lacs under the head of income 'income from house property', as against as business income, as being contended by the assessee. 3. We shall begin by recounting the background facts of the case. Return of income, offering the said rental income under the head 'income from house property', at Rs. 9,34,33,782/-, after claiming deductions u/s.24(a) and 24(b), was furnished on 31.10.2007, at a final, net loss of Rs. 34,29,749/-. Pending the regular assessment, which stood initiated by issue of notice u/s.143(2) on 29.09.2008, a 'revised return' was filed on 04.06.2009. The same bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strial park development, and operating and maintenance activities, constitute a real, substantive, systematic and organized activity, qualifying to be 'business'. The assessee had 20 employees on its rolls, looking after various operative and administrative functions. The said income was thus rightly assessable as 'business income', and the power of the first appellate authority to decide the matter, i.e., on merits, is not constrained by the fact of the assessee having not claimed per the original or the revised return. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the rental income be assessed u/s.56 as 'income from other sources'. The ld. CIT(A) while agreeing (with the A.O.) that the 'revised' return filed by the assessee on 04.06.1999 was not a v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee's claim, inasmuch as the same stands not made or pressed per an original or revised return, does not arise for consideration in-as-much as the same stands allowed by the ld. CIT(A), and against which decision the Revenue is not in appeal. In fact, suffice it to add that it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and would prevail, and not the view that an assessee may take of its rights (CIT vs. Parakh and Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC)), so that where it inadvertently fails to make a claim, arising from the given facts of the case, it would not be fatal to its case for deduction/exemption on its basis. 4.2 The only issue, therefore, before us is whether the income by way of lease rental is, under the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here would be a change in the character of the income in-as-much as the source thereof in that case is not located in only the building, a house property. The facilities being provided by the assessee in the present case, would, in our view, however, not have the effect of changing the source of its income to that other than building - the same being only toward and necessary for the proper user and enjoyment of the building itself. Could, for example, a building be used without power or water? The lifts, again, substitute the stairways in providing (easy) access to the different parts of the building. This is akin to a landlord letting his residential house with water, electricity, gas supply connections or other amenities. We agree with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anized activity, employing staff. Apart from the fact that there is no finding with regard to the employee strength, i.e., by the authorities below, the moot question is with regard to the source of income. The same being essentially rental income from a house property, the fact of it being carried on in an organized manner, by an entity which is incorporated, and perhaps for that purpose, would by itself be of no moment; the said activity or business being categorized as a separate source of income, i.e., from house property, under the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments P. Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 47 (Cal.), since upheld by the apex court in [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC), would squarely apply in the facts and ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s.80-IA(4)(iii) stands provided for by the statute, drawing our attention to the said Notification (No. 191/2006 dated 24.07.2006) issued by the CBDT u/s.80-IA(4)(iii) to the assessee (PB pgs. 1-3), and the letter by the CBDT to the assessee company conveying the said Notification (PB pgs. 4-8) as well as the communications in its respect to the assessee dated December 5 and 20, 2006 (PB pgs. 9-12). While the foregoing (paras 4.1 through 4.4 supra) represent our understanding of the law in the matter as well as our view in the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., as projected per the orders of the authorities below, the said documents provide an altogether new and different complexion to the assessee's case. If the assessee's buil....