9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1492 - HC - Income TaxTaxability of receipts for the lease - Long term lease of a hotel property - lease receipt based on % of revenue of hotel - Business Income OR House Property Income - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee's own 2017 (8) TMI 193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 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). 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.
Issues:
1. Classification of income from the lease of a hotel as Business Income or House Property Income. 2. Application of Arms' Length Principle in determining fair market value for tax purposes. Issue 1: Classification of income from the lease of a hotel The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of income derived from the lease of a hotel as either Business Income or House Property Income for tax purposes. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which treated the receipts for the lease of the hotel as Business Income. The Court considered whether the transaction, involving a long-term lease of a property, should be rightfully taxed as 'House Property Income' instead of Business Income. The Court noted that the Revenue had previously appealed the same issue, but both the High Court and the Supreme Court had dismissed their appeals. The Court referred to previous judgments where it was observed that the income received by leasing the hotel should be considered as income from house property, emphasizing that the nature of income depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court highlighted that the agreement between the parties must be examined to determine the nature of the income, and in this case, the income was considered as business income in previous assessments. The Court also noted that the assessee received a percentage of the total revenue earned by the lessee without a fixed rent amount, which was a factor considered by the Tribunal in its decision. Issue 2: Application of Arms' Length Principle The second issue raised in the appeal was regarding the application of the Arms' Length Principle in determining the fair market value for tax purposes. The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in treating the receipts for the lease of the hotel as Business Income, disregarding the finding by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the transaction was not at Arms' Length. The Revenue contended that the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be applicable to determine the fair market value. However, the Court observed that since the second question was dependent on the first question, and no substantial question of law arose from the issues raised, the appeal was dismissed. The Court emphasized that the additional questions raised by the Revenue did not present any new facets of the matter and were merely legal arguments. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the ITAT and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the ITAT regarding the classification of income from the lease of a hotel as Business Income and the application of the Arms' Length Principle for determining fair market value, dismissing the Revenue's appeal based on previous judgments and lack of substantial legal questions.
|
