9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1355 - HC - Income TaxProvisions of section 11(4A) - Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that the provisions of section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act 1961 were not attracted in the case of the assessee for the assessment year - Held that the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amal Kumar Chakraborty v. CIT 1992 -TMI - 20283 - CALCUTTA High Court that the principle of res judicata does not apply to Income-tax proceedings for a different assessment year having regard to our finding indicated above held that apart from the question of giving relief in the past the materials on record did not bring the mere act of sub-letting with nothing more within the term business so as to attract the then provision of section 11(4A) of the Act even for the relevant assessment year - Find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed by answering the reformulated question in the negative against the revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding income from subletting by a charitable trust. Analysis: The judgment by the Calcutta High Court dealt with an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the revenue challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment year 1991-92. The primary issue was whether the rental income earned by a charitable trust from subletting properties not owned by it should be treated as income from business under section 11(4A) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had assessed the rental income as business income, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal disagreed, allowing the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The key contention was whether subletting of tenanted property by the trust constituted a business activity as defined under the Act. The court analyzed the definition of "business" under section 2(13) of the Act, which includes any trade, commerce, or adventure in the nature of trade. The court referred to precedents like the Rotunda Hospital case and the National Storage case to determine the test for determining if an activity amounts to carrying on a business. In the Rotunda Hospital case, the House of Lords held that profits derived from letting out a property properly equipped for entertainments constituted a trade or business. The court emphasized that the true test is whether the activity is a simple letting out or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade or commerce. The court also discussed the National Storage case, where the company's activities of hiring out specially built vaults and providing services were considered a trade. The court noted that the Assessing Officer's finding that the trust's subletting activity was a commercial venture was reversed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The court agreed with their decision, stating that the mere act of subletting by the trust to further its charitable activities did not qualify as a business activity under section 11(4A) of the Act. Additionally, the court addressed the doctrine of res judicata in income tax proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai case. The court emphasized that while a decision in one year is not binding in subsequent years, it can be a factor in determining similar questions. However, the court found no justification to categorize the trust's subletting activity as a business, dismissing the revenue's appeal and ruling against them. In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The court held that the trust's subletting of properties for charitable purposes did not constitute a business activity under section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
