2013 (7) TMI 540 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of income - Income from house property or business income - Assessee engaged in provide infrastructure; including electrical installations, lifts etc. - Assessee receive guaranteed monthly amount - A.O. held it as income from house property and made addition - CIT(A) and Tribunal deleted addition holding that appellant had obtained registration under labour law and other applicable factory laws - Held that - assessee did not supply solely the house property with or without furnishings. It supplied various requirements of the joint venture business; such as, infrastructure, machinery, security systems, canteen and house-keeping. The assessee also undertook the responsibility of operation and maintenance of such services and also to provide skilled work force for processing the diamonds - It, therefore, cannot be stated that the assessee was not in the business through joint venture of processing of the diamonds. Merely because such agreement envisaged assured return to the assessee, in lieu of either profit or loss to be shared from the joint venture, would not take away the fact that the assessee was engaged in the business - The assessee had not rented out property but had allowed its use thereof for the purpose of joint venture business - Following decision of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Saptarshi Services Ltd. 2003 (2) TMI 415 - GUJARAT High Court - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting additions made on account of business income treated as income from house property and sale of canteen coupons?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in ruling that the receipt on account of letting out furnished premises is business income?
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in ruling that the receipt on account of letting out furnished premises is business income despite the agreement indicating it as letting out for a fixed period and defined amount?

Analysis:
1. The main issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 1.55 Crores as income from house property by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer believed that the income generated by the assessee from a joint business agreement should be considered income from house property. However, the CIT (A) disagreed, highlighting that the assessee was engaged in commercial activities and not merely letting out property. The CIT (A) emphasized that the primary intention of the assessee was commercial exploitation of the property, leading to the income being categorized as business income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing similar judgments where income from providing services along with property was considered business income.

2. The Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts by noting that the assessee provided various services and infrastructure for a joint venture business, indicating commercial activity beyond simple property rental. The agreement ensured a minimum return to the assessee, demonstrating active involvement in the business. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous cases where income derived from providing services along with property was categorized as business income, not income from house property.

3. In a similar case, the Court dismissed an appeal where the assessee provided various services along with leased property, treating the income as business income. This decision further supported the Tribunal's ruling in the present case. Additionally, the Supreme Court's judgment in a different case emphasized that income from allowing property use for a joint venture business should be considered business income, distinguishing it from income from house property. The facts of the present case clearly indicated commercial exploitation of the property, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeals.

Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to categorize the income as business income due to the commercial nature of the activities conducted by the assessee was upheld, and the Tax Appeals were dismissed.