2014 (6) TMI 803 - AT - Income Tax

Treatment of income earned from sub-letting of business service center Income from other sources or business income Held that - the fact that the assessee running the business centre by exploiting the property is not merely an activity of letting out the property and the fact that the assessee has been showing the rent received from letting out the business centre under the head business income continuously since 1984 we are of the considered view that the authorities below are not justified in treating the impugned receipts under the head income from other sources. - AO directed to treat the impugned receipts in both the assessment years under the head business income as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee. The details of expenditure incurred by the assessee reveals that the expenses are for keeping the premises alive for earning the income from legitimate business of activity of renting - the legal fees expense claimed by the assessee is for the purpose of safeguarding the company s tenanted properties - the income received from the business centre has to be treated as business income in pursuance of the adjudication and the fact that the expenditures have nexus with the business income the expenditures claimed by the assessee have also to be allowed as business expenditure the AO is directed to allow the expenditure claimed by the assessee Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of income earned by the assessee from a business service center.
2. Disallowance of certain expenditures incurred by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of Income from Business Service Center
The main issue in this appeal pertains to the treatment of income earned by the assessee from a business service center. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the income as from other sources instead of business income, as declared by the assessee. The AO argued that the rental income was akin to income from sub-letting, falling under other sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee was not the property owner, and letting out the property did not constitute the assessee's business. However, the Tribunal analyzed the historical engagement of the assessee in both embroidery and property rental businesses. The Tribunal reviewed the company's memorandum and articles of association, which permitted income generation from leased premises. The agreement for the business service center indicated the provision of services and facilities to clients, emphasizing the business nature of the activity. Referring to relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the income from the business center should be treated as business income, considering the consistent treatment by the assessee since 1984. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the income under the head of business income.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Expenditures
Regarding the disallowance of certain expenditures by the AO, the Tribunal examined the nature of the expenses claimed by the assessee. The AO disallowed expenditures like interest, depreciation, bank charges, compensation, license fees, and rent, stating they were not attributable to earning rental income or business income. Similarly, for the subsequent assessment year, legal charges related to defending property rights were disallowed. The Tribunal found that the expenses were essential for maintaining the premises to earn legitimate business income from renting. The legal fees were incurred to protect the company's tenanted properties. Considering the nexus between the expenses and business income, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claimed expenditures as business expenses. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order in favor of the assessee on June 6, 2014.