TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the transaction is a business activity was justified in concluding that the income has to be assessed as "income from property?" 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the stand of the Respondent on the assessment of lease income under head 'property' even though it was not a case letting 'simpliciter' and on the contrary letting with amenities and services, warranting computation under the head 'business' granting deduction of expenses incurred? 4. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the stand of the Respondent on the assessment of lease income under head 'property' even though the facts and circumstances warrant assessment under head 'other sources' alternatively upon taking into consideration t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chennai, who in respect of the the first issue confirmed the order of the assessing officer but in respect of the second issue granted partial relief. The second appeal filed before the Tribunal also has not yielded any result in favour of the appellant/assessee. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, who assailed the order of the Tribunal contending inter alia that as per the memorandum of association, the main object of the assessee was to carry on business of hotel, restaurant, roadhouse, motel, cafe, tavem, beer house, refreshment, etc., as such the property has been exploited commercially and the income earned from the exploita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case i.e., the assessee was the owner of the property and has not been used by him for the purpose of his business. Thus the income was chargeable as income from property and not as business income. 8. On appeal, the Commissioner after hearing the argument and perusal of the material on record, has recorded a finding that the income was generated out of exploitation of the property by letting out the same to M/s. Shoppers Stop. There was no commercial activity or business activity carried out by the appellant to earn such income. Some additional facilities extended to the tenant might be useful to the tenant to exploit the property commercially. This finding of fact has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT [1961]42 ITR 49 (SC) has held that though the object of the assessee company no doubt was to acquire land and building and turn the same into account by construction, reconstruction and leasing and selling the same assuming to be a business activity would not by itself turn the lease into business deal. After taking note of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court reported in Chennai Properties case[2004] 266 ITR 685 in which one of us (K.Raviraja Pandian, J.) was a party, has also held to the same effect. 12. On the facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee company was only exploiting the property ....