2017 (8) TMI 193 - HC - Income Tax

Treating the receipts from the lease of its hotel - business income OR house property income - Held that - It has been observed that the business was handed over by the respondent assessee to KHIL in the year 1994 and since the assessment year 1995-96 till the assessment year 2005-06, the income from the same was assessed as a business income. The assessment for the year 1995-96 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. So also, for the assessment year 2003-04 and assessment year 2005-06, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The claim of the assessee of the said income being a business income was accepted. The assessee is not receiving any rent amount but is receiving 1% of the total revenue earned by KHIL and does not get any fix amount as rent. These aspects are considered by the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Characterization of income from lease of hotel as business income or house property income.
2. Dismissal of appeal regarding determination of fair market value (FMV) based on deposits received.
3. Ignoring Rule 8D for computation of expenditure in case of exempt income.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this judgment is the characterization of income from the lease of a hotel as either business income or house property income for Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appellant argued that the income should be considered as house property income based on the agreement and the nature of the business. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court to support this argument. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the income from the hotel had been assessed as business income in previous years, but the appellant contended that this should not preclude a reexamination of the agreement. Ultimately, the Tribunal considered the aspects of the agreement and the nature of the income received, leading to the conclusion that the income should be treated as business income. The appeal was dismissed on this issue.

2. The second issue raised was the dismissal of the appeal regarding the determination of fair market value (FMV) based on deposits received in lieu of leasing the house property. However, this issue was found to be dependent on the first issue of characterizing the income as business income. Since the first issue was decided against the appellant, the second issue was also dismissed accordingly.

3. The third issue involved the application of Rule 8D for the computation of expenditure in case of exempt income. However, this issue was restored to the Assessing Officer under the impugned order of the Tribunal and was not pressed further. As a result, no substantial question of law arose from this issue, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat the income from the lease of the hotel as business income, considering the nature of the agreement and the income received. The dismissal of the appeal regarding the determination of fair market value and the non-pursuance of the issue related to Rule 8D led to the overall dismissal of the appeal without costs.