9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 162 - HC - Income TaxLicense fee receipt - business income or house from property - Held that - The specific clauses of the licence deed, the Court is satisfied that the income earned by the Assessee from the licence fee could not be characterised as rent and, therefore, income from house property. The Court is of the view that the AO and the ITAT were in error in coming to a contrary conclusion. They appear to have overlooked that the Assessee had consistently treated the licence fees collected as business income since AY 1982-83. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000 (4) TMI 26 - DELHI High Court ) in similar circumstances, applying the rule of consistency, the Court declined to frame a question of law urged by the Revenue that the licence fee earned by the owner of the property ought to be treated as income from house property and not business income.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Classification of income derived from licensing part of the premises under the head "Income from house property" versus "Income from business." 3. Proper interpretation of the license deeds and the classification of the license fee received by the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Court examined whether the reopening of the assessments for the Assessment Years (AYs) 1990-91 to 1993-94 was valid. The assessments were processed under Section 143(1)(a) and not Section 143(3) of the Act. The Court referenced the legal position summarized in Indu Lata Rangwala v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which stated that for reopening assessments processed under Section 143(1), the Assessing Officer (AO) does not require fresh tangible material but must form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Court found that the AO's reasons for reopening were merely conclusions without setting out prima facie reasons or linking them to objective facts. Consequently, the reopening did not satisfy the legal requirements under Sections 147 and 148, and the Court answered this issue in favor of the Assessee. 2. Classification of Income Derived from Licensing Part of the Premises: The Court considered whether the income derived from licensing part of the premises should be assessed under "Income from house property" or "Income from business." The Assessee had consistently shown the license fee as business income from AY 1982-83 onwards, and the CIT(A) had accepted this treatment. The CIT(A) analyzed the license deeds and concluded that the Assessee was exploiting the commercial asset (factory shed) to receive license fees, which should be treated as business income. The ITAT, however, disagreed without providing substantial reasons and confirmed the AO's view that the license fee was income from house property. The Court found the ITAT's reasoning inadequate and sided with the CIT(A), confirming that the license fee should be treated as business income. 3. Proper Interpretation of the License Deeds: The Court analyzed the specific clauses of the license deeds, which indicated that the arrangement was not a lease but a license. The clauses emphasized that the Assessee retained control and supervision of the premises, and the agreements were not in the nature of tenancy agreements. The Court referenced several legal precedents, including Universal Plast Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, to support the view that income from licensing or letting out of assets should be considered business income if it aligns with the Assessee's main line of business. The Court concluded that the income earned from the license fee could not be characterized as rent and should be treated as business income. Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order of the ITAT and the corresponding order of the AO for the AYs in question. The reopening of assessments was deemed invalid, and the license fee was classified as business income. The judgment favored the Assessee on all issues, with no order as to costs.
|
