2017 (3) TMI 1320 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of receipt received on leasing of the immovable property - Income from House Property OR Profits and Gains from Business - Held that - In the Leave and License Agreement, the total consideration has been stipulated for letting out the properties and whatever amenities mentioned in para 26 of this agreement, nothing can be worked out as to how much money was to be received for providing these facilities. Therefore, whatever consideration was received on account of Lease and License Agreement, the entire receipt can only be treated as income from house property and not as income from business. So far as the income received by virtue of another agreement i.e., Agreement for Hire of Amenities, it can only be called to be business income. Therefore, we are partly modifying the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the income from house property as well as the business income of the assessee for providing certain amenities in terms indicated above.

Summary

Issues: Nature of receipt received on leasing of immovable property

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the nature of the receipt received by the assessee on leasing out immovable property. The assessee claimed the income as business income, asserting that certain services were provided to tenants alongside letting out the property. However, the Assessing Officer categorized it as income from house property. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing the judgment in the case of Shambu Investment Private Limited. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, referencing judgments from the jurisdictional High Court and Madras High Court to support the contention that income from services rendered should be considered business income.

The Tribunal carefully examined the agreements between the parties, specifically the Leave and License Agreement and the Agreement for Hire of Amenities. It was noted that while the property was let out to the lessee along with certain amenities, the agreements did not specify the amount to be paid for availing these amenities. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar (HUF) and highlighted the distinction between income from house property and business income based on the separability of income from letting out property and other amenities. The Tribunal concluded that the consideration received under the Leave and License Agreement should be treated as income from house property, while the income from the Agreement for Hire of Amenities could be considered business income.

Therefore, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the income from house property and business income for the assessee based on the aforementioned analysis.

This judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the nature of income received from leasing immovable property and the criteria for distinguishing between income from house property and business income based on the services provided to tenants. The Tribunal's decision was guided by relevant legal precedents and a detailed examination of the agreements between the parties.