TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s effected by a deed dated September 3, 1966. In the assessment year 1971-72, the relevant accounting period ending on March 31, 1971, the assessee executed a sub-lease in respect of a portion of its leasehold interest in favour of M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., another limited company associated with the assessee. The said sub-lease was effected by a deed which was, however, not registered. M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., paid a premium of Rs. 63,13,000 and has been paying rent of Rs. 15,000 per year in respect of the said sub-lease to the assessee. The portion of the said premises under sub-lease was made over to M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. A multi-storeyed building had been constructed in the said portion under sub-lease and M/s. Surren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Commissioner (Appeals) noted further that in the earlier years, viz., assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71 and 1972-73 to 1974-75, the income arising from the said premises had been assessed in the hands of the assessee as income from business, as, in terms of the objects set out in its memorandum of association, the assessee had been utilising the leasehold as a commercial asset. It was also urged before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Incometax Officer had erred in assessing the income of the leasehold property in the hands of the assessee on a notional basis under the head " Income from house property ". The Commissioner (Appeals) held that, as the income should be assessed under the head " Business ", the question of making an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner (Appeals) found that though he had stated in his earlier orders that income from the said leasehold should be assessed in the hands of the assessee under the head " Business " and no income on notional basis could arise, the Income-tax Officer had included the income from the premises earned by Surrendra Overseas Ltd., in the total income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no reason to assess the income of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. in the hands of the assessee and set aside the order of recomputation dated February 21, 1983, and directed the Incometax Officer to exclude the income of Surrendra Overseas Ltd. from the income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the rent of sub-lease,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. The Tribunal found that a part of the leasehold had been transferred by the assessee to M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. The Tribunal found further that the portion of the leasehold transferred to M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. had been let out and income has arisen from the said portion and received by M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. The Tribunal held that such income was not notional income but had been actually received from the leasehold property by M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. and if the same was not assessed as business income in the hands of the assessee, the amount will go untaxed both in the hands of the assessee as also M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. in view of the orders passed in the assessment of the latter. The Tribunal dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcially. The assessee took on lease a market for a long term and developed the same. The said market was sub-let thereafter in terms of the lease. The question arose whether the income of the assessee from sub-letting a portion of the market was assessable as business income under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or as income from other sources under section 12 of the said Act. It was held by the Supreme Court that as the assessee was not the owner of the property, there was no question of making the assessment under section 9 of the Act of 1922 and treating the income as income from house property. It was held further that the definition of business in the Act was of wide amplitude and would include transactions in real pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., in the hands of M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. In the facts and circumstances, in particular, that a part of the leasehold has been made over to M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., a company which is an entity different from the assessee, that the latter was collecting rent from the tenants in the said portion of the leasehold property and that the rent from the said portion of the property had not been collected or realised by the assessee who had no benefit of the same, the conclusion is obvious. It has been held that the income of the assessee from the said leasehold property would be treated as income from business and not from house property. It is also not in dispute that the assessee is not the owner of t....