2011 (12) TMI 258 - AT - Income Tax

Building Let out used as a hostel premises/transit facility is assessable under House Property OR Business Income - Three Agreements lease provision and maintenance of amenities and facilities - Held That - All agreements are complementary supplementary and have cross reference. There is no scope of any segregation of the consideration into separate streams. The entire income the net of expenses which the assessee undertakes as a business organisation has to be treated as business income.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Income: Business Income vs. Income from House Property
2. Composite Agreements and Inseparable Letting
3. Treatment of Pre-construction Interest

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Income: Business Income vs. Income from House Property
The primary issue was whether the income derived from the letting of a hostel building should be classified as "business income" or "income from house property." The assessee argued that the income from three agreements (construction, lease, and provision of amenities) constituted a single indivisible business. The Revenue, however, contended that the lease rent should be segregated and treated as income from house property, citing precedents like Attukal Shopping Complex (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. v. CIT.

2. Composite Agreements and Inseparable Letting
The Tribunal examined whether the three agreements were part of a composite arrangement or could be considered independently. The agreements were found to be interlinked and complementary, indicating a single arrangement for providing hostel facilities. The Tribunal referred to Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT to determine if the letting was inseparable, concluding that the agreements were intended to be enjoyed together, making the letting inseparable. The Tribunal emphasized that the intention of the parties and the conduct in pursuance of the agreements indicated a single, indivisible business arrangement.

3. Treatment of Pre-construction Interest
The assessee claimed interest for the pre-construction period as a deduction. The Tribunal noted that such a deduction is only available under Section 24 for income from house property, not business income. Since the Tribunal classified the income as business income, the claim for pre-construction interest was found to be contrary to the applicable provisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the income from the three agreements should be treated as business income, not income from house property. The entire income, net of expenses, was to be considered as business income. However, the claim for pre-construction interest was disallowed as it did not comply with the provisions applicable to business income. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed in favor of the assessee, subject to the condition regarding the pre-construction interest.