2014 (2) TMI 1227 - AT - Income Tax

Rent receipts - income from business or income from house property - inseparable project - Held that - Where the assessee is engaged in the business of commercial complex and commercial exploitation of the property, the income earned from such activities constitutes business income of the assessee. The separate agreement made providing services and amenities clearly shows the indication to render commercial services to the tenants. The agreement for hiring and agreement for the services and the facilities were inextricably linked with similar tenures. Giving space with services and facilities which were varied and wide and such activities together would definitely constitute an organized structure for making profits, and would necessarily constitute a business and the relationship between the parties as distinguished from that merely of a landlord and his tenant. Occupation of space was inseparable from the provision of services and amenities as held by the ITAT in the case of Gesco Corp (P) Ltd (2009 (4) TMI 549 - ITAT MUMBAI ). Further, providing amenities like electricity, telephone, watch and ward etc are the services rendered by the assessee result of its activities carried on continuously in an organized manner with a set purpose and with a view to earn profit. Hence, all the activities which are subject matters of both the agreements entered into by the asssessee for rendering of services and letting of the office space are in the nature of commercial activities and income derived by assessee from shopping malls / business centre was assessable as business income and not as income from house property as held by the ITAT, Calcutta in the case of PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd ( 2007 (5) TMI 258 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A ) and the same view was taken by the ITAT Cuttack also in the case of Narayah Market Complex (2012 (4) TMI 467 - ITAT CUTTACK). Thus we are of the opinion that the both the rental and service charges are inseparable and they should be treated as business income and not as income from the house property‟ as held by the AO. Therefore, the decision of the CIT (A) in allowing the assessee‟s claim of depreciation on building by holding that the rental income was income from business is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of rental income as "income from business" versus "income from house property."
2. Allowance of depreciation on the building.
3. Deletion of disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Rental Income
The primary issue was whether the rental income of Rs. 1,38,48,179 received by the assessee from Shoppers Stop Ltd and Movie Times should be classified as "income from business" or "income from house property." The Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as "income from house property," arguing that the assessee was not engaged in any business activity and simply received rent from tenants. However, the assessee contended that the entire activity of letting and rendering services to tenants constituted a "complex commercial activity," thereby qualifying the income as "business income." The assessee relied on various judgments, including CIT vs. New India Industries and PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd, to support their claim that commercial exploitation of property should be treated as business income. The CIT (A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the activities of space letting and service provision were inseparable and constituted a systematic and regular commercial activity. Thus, the rental income was deemed "business income."

Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation
The second issue was whether the CIT (A) was correct in allowing the entire claim of depreciation on the building by holding that the rental income was "income from business." Since the rental income was classified as "business income," the related expenses, including depreciation, were allowed as business expenses. The CIT (A) concluded that the assessee was engaged in a systematic and regular activity of commercially exploiting the assets, making the rental income inseparable from the revenue generated from providing common facilities/services. Therefore, the AO was directed to treat the rental receipts as business income and allow the related expenses, including depreciation, as business expenses.

Issue 3: Deletion of Disallowance of Expenses
The third issue involved the deletion of disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee. The AO had disallowed these expenses on the grounds that the assessee was not engaged in any business activity but had simply let out the house property. However, since the CIT (A) classified the rental income as "business income," the related expenses, including those incurred for maintaining the property and providing amenities, were allowed as business expenses. The CIT (A) noted that the assessee was engaged in a complex commercial activity, and the income generated from letting out the property was inseparable from the revenue generated from providing services. Consequently, the disallowance of expenses was deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, agreeing that the rental income should be classified as "business income" due to the complex commercial activities involved. Consequently, the related expenses, including depreciation, were allowed as business expenses. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT (A)'s order was affirmed.