2014 (6) TMI 963 - HC - Income Tax

Rental income received - treated as Income from Business and not as Income from House Property - Held that - As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Limited 2013 (8) TMI 113 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry on the business of letting out the commercial property and carrying at complex commercial activity and getting rental income therefrom then such a rental income falls under the heading of profits and gains of business or profession. Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the rental income received from Forum Mall Eva Mall and UB City and rental received from Fit Outs (i.e. bare superstructure of the building) should be treated as Income from Business and not as Income from House Property - Decided against revenue

Issues:
1. Whether rental income from specific malls should be treated as "Income from Business" or "Income from House Property" based on the nature of the lease agreements.
2. Whether rental income from Fit Outs should be classified as "Income from Business" or "Income from House Property" as per the Assessing Officer's decision.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of rental income from Forum Mall, Eva Mall, and UB City as either "Income from Business" or "Income from House Property." The Appellate Tribunal's decision was challenged by the revenue, raising the question of whether the specific agreement between the landlord and tenant, along with the nature of the rental income, should dictate the classification. The Tribunal's decision was based on the intention behind the lease, the nature of the property, and the commercial activities involved in the rental agreements. The judgment cited the case of Shambhu Investments (263 ITR 143) and emphasized the importance of determining whether the rental income is derived from exploiting commercial property for rental purposes or from a business of letting out commercial buildings with additional facilities. The Court referred to a previous decision in a similar case and concluded that if the intention is to carry out a business of letting out commercial property and engaging in complex commercial activities, the rental income should be classified as profits and gains of business or profession.

2. Another issue raised in the appeal was regarding the classification of rental income from Fit Outs as "Income from Business" or "Income from House Property." The Assessing Officer had classified this income as "Income from House Property," which was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the assessment that the rental income from Fit Outs should be treated as "Income from Business" based on the nature of the activities and agreements involved. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the intention behind the lease, the facilities provided, and whether the income is inseparable from the business of letting out commercial properties. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the substantial questions of law raised were already addressed in a previous decision, emphasizing the consistent approach in similar cases regarding the classification of rental income based on the nature of the lease agreements and commercial activities conducted.

← Previous Next →