9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the assessability of income derived from a lodging house under the head "Income from house property" or "Income from other sources". Judgment Details: The High Court of Madras considered a batch of tax cases where the common question was whether income from a lodging house should be assessed under "Income from house property" or "Income from other sources." The case involved a co-owner of a lodging house who let it out to a firm. The Income-tax Officer and the first appellate authority held that a portion of the income should be assessed under "Income from house property" and the rest under "Income from other sources." The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the income should be assessed under "Income from other sources" based on the terms of the lease deeds and the nature of the property. The Tribunal found the letting of the premises and fittings to be a single transaction. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's finding was based on the materials before it and upheld the decision. The High Court examined the intention of the parties in the lease agreements and partnership deed. It found that the letting of the building and furniture was a single transaction, supported by the payment of a single consideration. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the income should be assessed under "Income from other sources" based on the inseparability of the letting. The Court applied tests laid down by the Supreme Court to determine inseparable letting and found that the Tribunal's decision was correct in this case. The Court distinguished previous decisions cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the facts of those cases were different. It held that the entire rent received from the composite letting of the premises with fittings should be assessed under "Income from other sources." The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the common question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
|
