2018 (8) TMI 1622 - AT - Income Tax

Treatment to rental income - business income or income from house property - intention of the parties while entering into the lease - Held that - What is to be looked into is intention of the parties while entering into the lease. Admittedly the agreements entered by the assessee with the lessees were contemporaneous. Objects of the lease was to allow enjoyment of the entire property with all services related to its use as technology centers. The income of the assessee both from leasing the space as well as providing maintenance services had to be considered only under the head income from business. Assessing Officer fell in error in treating such amounts under the head income from house property. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in treating part of such income as income from house property. We are of the opinion that assessee s income has to be considered only under the head income from business . - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
Classification of income from leasing IT park under appropriate head - income from house property or income from business.

Analysis:
1. The appeals and cross-appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-2013 regarding the classification of income derived from leasing an IT Park named 'Ambit IT Park' to various parties.

2. The Assessing Officer classified the income under the head 'income from house property' due to tax deductions by lessees under section 194I of the Income Tax Act, despite the assessee's argument that the IT park was leased along with various supporting services for commercial exploitation.

3. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) citing the primary objective of renting out the IT park alongside services, supported by a judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court. However, the CIT(A) partially upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, categorizing maintenance charges as 'income from business.'

4. The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to treat maintenance and service charges as business income, while the assessee challenged the classification of rental income as 'income from house property.'

5. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel emphasized the partnership deed's business objectives and cited relevant case laws to support the income classification under 'income from business.'

6. The Departmental Representative argued based on previous judgments that even if the primary purpose was to run a technology park or lease it out, the income should be considered under 'income from house property.'

7. The Tribunal examined the agreements, the nature of the IT park, and the firm's business objectives. Referring to the approval from the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, the Tribunal highlighted the contemporaneous agreements and the intention to provide leased space as part of the business.

8. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's rulings and the nature of the company's sole business as leasing property for rent, the Tribunal concluded that the income from leasing space and providing maintenance services should be classified as 'income from business,' contrary to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)'s decisions.

9. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed those of the Department, ordering the income to be considered only under the head 'income from business.'

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the classification of income derived from leasing an IT park, emphasizing the business objectives, contemporaneous agreements, and the nature of services provided to determine the appropriate head for income classification.

← Previous Next →