2015 (6) TMI 394 - AT - Income Tax

Rental income - taxable income from house property or business income - Held that - No reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein held that is true that the commercial or office complex is on the same plot on which the hotel is situated but it is undisputedly distinct from, even if somewhat attached to, the hotel itself, and, therefore, the fact of the commercial complex being on the same plot does not help the case of the revenue. The physical proximity of the hotel and the commercial complex does not really matter as long as the character of arrangement has distinct character, and there is no dispute on that aspect. It is a case of renting simplictor and the services incidental to letting out do not constitute such complex character so as to be render it as a business by itself. Respectfully following the said order, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to tax the impugned rental income under the head income from house property . - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of brand building expenses - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that - No reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us for the assessment year 2009-10 wherin genuineness, revenue nature and business expediency of these expenses is accepted by the Assessing Officer himself. Respectfully following the said order, we uphold the stand of the CIT(A), hold that he rightly deleted the impugned disallowance and decline to interfere in the matter. In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of rental income: Whether the rental income should be taxed under the head 'income from house property' or 'profits and gains of business and profession'.
2. Disallowance of brand building expenses: Whether the disallowance of brand building expenses by the Assessing Officer was justified.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Rental Income:
The core issue in the assessee's appeal was whether the rental income should be taxed under the head 'income from house property' or 'profits and gains of business and profession'. The dispute arose because the assessee had shown rental income from letting out space in a commercial plaza as 'income from house property', while the Assessing Officer (AO) taxed it under 'profits and gains of business and profession'.

The AO argued that renting out commercial space was one of the main objects of the company and compared it to renting out hotel rooms, suggesting that both should be treated as business income. The AO also cited judgments from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court to support this view.

However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Investments Pvt Ltd v. CIT, which held that the primary object of the assessee should determine the head under which the income is taxed. If the main intention is to let out the property or any portion thereof, it should be considered as rental income or 'income from house property'. Conversely, if the main intention is to exploit the property through complex commercial activities, it must be considered as business income.

The ITAT noted that the assessee's rental income was from letting out property without any dominant incidental services. The lease agreements indicated that the property was let out for running offices and commercial establishments, not accompanied by complex services. Thus, the income was rightly taxable under 'income from house property'.

Additionally, the ITAT pointed out that in previous assessment years, similar income had been taxed as 'income from house property', and there was no reason to deviate from this precedent. The ITAT concluded that the income from letting out the property should be taxed under 'income from house property', and allowed the assessee's appeal.

2. Disallowance of Brand Building Expenses:
In the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer, the issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of brand building expenses. The AO had disallowed 50% of the expenses, arguing that the benefits of the expenditure would also be available in subsequent years, and since the assessee followed the mercantile method of accounting, the expenses should be allowed in the year to which they pertain.

The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance, noting that similar expenses had been allowed in earlier years and that the disallowance was arbitrary and without a clear basis. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that even under the mercantile method of accounting, expenses are booked when the liability to pay crystallizes, irrespective of whether the benefits extend into future years. The expenses in question were based on the revenues of the current year and covered the period related to the relevant previous year.

The ITAT further noted that the AO had accepted the genuineness, revenue nature, and business expediency of the expenses by allowing them in part. Therefore, the disallowance was deemed uncalled for, and the ITAT dismissed the AO's appeal.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to tax the rental income under 'income from house property'. The ITAT also dismissed the AO's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of brand building expenses.

← Previous Next →