9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 439 - HC - Income TaxCorrect head on Income - rent received by the assessee from letting out business premises - business income or income from House property - claim of the assessee treating the income received from lease/licencing the business centre as 'business income', was disallowed by the assessing officer by observing that the income received from the house property has to be assessed under the head 'income from house property' - Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respondent / assessee, after having held that the income received from commercial asset is to be treated as 'business income' and not 'income from house property' - HELD THAT - Tribunal being fact finding authority, has passed the well considered order after anlaysing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the material evidence placed before it and hence, the same does not call for any interference. See M/S. SSM. ESTATES LTD. 2015 (3) TMI 320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Assessment of rental income as business income or income from house property. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the assessment of rental income received by the assessee from leasing commercial premises to M/s.SBI Home Finance Ltd. The Revenue contended that the income should be assessed under the head 'income from house property'. However, the ITAT accepted the assessee's argument that the income should be treated as 'business income' as the commercial space was given on a license basis. The High Court examined the substantial question of law regarding the classification of the income and analyzed the facts and legal precedents. The assessing officer initially assessed the rental income under the head 'income from house property', which was upheld by the appellate authority. In contrast, the ITAT relied on the decision in CIT v. VST Motors Pvt Ltd and concluded that the income from the commercial asset should be treated as 'business income'. The High Court noted the Tribunal's findings that the property in question was a commercial asset and the income derived from it was rightly assessable as 'business income'. The court emphasized the importance of determining whether a property is a commercial asset or house property to classify the income correctly. The High Court highlighted the distinction between cases where properties were let out as opposed to the present scenario where the commercial complex was given on license for immediate use. Citing the decision in CIT v. VST Motors Pvt Ltd, the court emphasized that the income should be treated as 'business income' based on the specific facts of the case. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that it was a fact-finding authority that had considered all relevant evidence before reaching its conclusion. Additionally, the court referred to a similar case where a Co-ordinate Bench had ruled in favor of the assessee, further supporting the classification of the income as 'business income'. The court concluded that the Tribunal's well-reasoned decision did not warrant interference and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, ruling in favor of the respondent/assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing each case based on its unique facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate classification of income. In summary, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to treat the rental income as 'business income' rather than 'income from house property', emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the property and the specific terms of the lease/license agreement. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal precedents and factual findings supporting the classification of the income and dismissed the Revenue's appeals accordingly.
|
