2015 (5) TMI 1165 - AT - Income Tax

Income on sub -lease of land and maintenance income - assessment as busniss income - Held that - As relying on assessee s own case CIT(A) was correct in holding that income on sub -lease of land and maintenance income under the head business income and allowing various business expenses claimed by the assessee in absence of any business activity. Addition in respect of interest on borrowed capital utilized for construction of property - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A), by following his own order for the A.Y. 2008-09, on the similar issue, has deleted the addition made by the AO. The said decision of the Ld.CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the said order, has held that if interest has been paid by an assessee for acquiring or construction assets that are used for earning taxable income then his claim for interest expenditure has to be allowed. - Revenue appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of income on sub-lease of land and maintenance income as business income.
2. Deletion of addition in respect of interest on borrowed capital utilized for property construction.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the classification of income on sub-lease of land and maintenance income as business income for the assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing various business expenses claimed by the assessee despite the absence of any business activity. The assessee, a company engaged in biotech park development, had declared a business loss along with income from house property and other sources. The AO disallowed the business loss and held that claimed expenses should be capitalized. However, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on previous orders and determined that the business was operational, thus justifying the sub-lease and maintenance income as business income. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on consistent findings from prior assessments, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. The second issue involves the deletion of an addition in respect of interest on borrowed capital utilized for property construction. The Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete this addition, arguing that the interest expenditure should not be allowed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal, following precedent from a previous assessment year, ruled in favor of the assessee. They emphasized that if interest is paid for acquiring assets used to generate taxable income, the expenditure should be permitted. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision for the current year based on the previous ruling, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both parties and consistent with prior decisions, dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of income and the deletion of the addition related to interest on borrowed capital. The judgment highlights the importance of precedent and the application of tax laws in determining the tax treatment of various income sources and expenses.