2020 (3) TMI 880 - HC - Income Tax

Correct head of income - franchise fees charged by the appellant - income from house property or business income - HELD THAT - The issue has already been decided in the Judgment of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Toursim Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2014 (9) TMI 431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Hence, in view of the above, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The questions of law framed are answered against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing appeals filed by the assessee regarding franchise fees assessment under different heads.

Analysis:
The case involves a wholly owned Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking engaged in conducting tours, operating hotels, and exhibitions. The dispute arises from the assessment year 2007-08 when the assessee filed a return of income amounting to ?2,97,35,550. The assessment was later reopened under Section 147, leading to a notice under Section 143(2) being issued. The Assessing Officer assessed franchise fees received as business income instead of income from house property, disallowing a statutory deduction under Section 24. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision based on a previous judgment by the Madras High Court concerning the same appellant.

The assessee, aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the decision. The High Court was approached with substantial questions of law regarding the classification of franchise fees as business income or income from house property. The Tribunal's decision was based on the distinction between leasing hotels and operating them, concluding that the income should be treated as business income. The High Court upheld this decision, citing a previous judgment involving the same appellant and dismissing the appeals.

The central issue in this case was the classification of franchise fees received by the appellant as either income from house property or business income. The High Court relied on a previous judgment involving the same appellant to affirm the Tribunal's decision that the franchise fees should be assessed as business income. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the distinction between leasing properties and conducting business activities, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appellant's claims.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat the franchise fees as business income, based on the distinction between property leasing and business operations. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment provides clarity on the classification of income for such transactions, emphasizing the legal principles governing such assessments.