1981 (11) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the lease agreement regarding service and maintenance charges.
2. Classification of income from service and maintenance charges as "business income" or "income from house property."

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the Lease Agreement
The primary question referred to the court was whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the service and maintenance charges recovered from the lessees were not only towards the provision of lifts but also for other services rendered by the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The lease agreement stipulated that the lessee, M/s. Siemens India Ltd., was to pay Rs. 16,620 as rent and Rs. 8,200 for servicing and maintenance of two lifts, aggregating to Rs. 24,820. The Tribunal found that the service and maintenance charges were not confined to the provision of lifts but covered other services as well, such as water supply, drainage maintenance, and electricity supply.

Issue 2: Classification of Income
The ITO initially classified the entire income from the property as "income from house property," disallowing various expenses claimed by the assessee. However, the AAC accepted the assessee's contention that the service and maintenance charges should be assessed under the head "business income." The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the services rendered by the assessee were complex and partook of the nature of an organized business activity. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 547, which held that services rendered by the assessee to its tenants were business activities and the income arising therefrom was assessable under s. 10 of the Act of 1922.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's finding that the service and maintenance charges were not solely for the provision of lifts but also for other services was upheld. The income from these charges was correctly classified as "business income." The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The decision aligns with the principles established in the Supreme Court's ruling in Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT.