2022 (4) TMI 1633 - HC - Income Tax

Correct head of income - income received by way of (a) sub-leasing of already leased out property and maintenance charges - income from house property OR income from business - HELD THAT - Issues involved herein have already been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the appellant's own case rental income derived from the house property should be treated as business income. Hence, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. Whether income from maintenance charges and air conditioning hire charges should be treated as business income, it should not be treated as business income as it is covered by the Judgement of this Court in the case of Tarapore Co. 2002 (8) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein this Court has held that Service charges received from tenants are liable to be assessed as income from other sources and not as income from house property . Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of income received by the appellant as either income from house property or income from business.
2. Interpretation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the treatment of lease income and rental income from the property.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of income received from sub-leasing property and maintenance charges as either income from house property or income from business. The substantial questions of law raised included whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessment of the income in question. The appellant argued that the main object of the company, as provided in the Memorandum and Objects, should determine the classification of income. The Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had previously decided a similar issue in the appellant's own case, where it was held that income from leasing and renting of properties with maintenance charges should be treated as income from house property. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a separate judgment, reversed the High Court's decision in a different case, holding that income from house property should be treated as business income. The High Court in the present case noted that the Supreme Court's judgment only covered lease and rental income, not maintenance charges and other related charges. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant regarding income from leasing out the property but in favor of the Revenue regarding maintenance charges.

Issue 2: The High Court analyzed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and clarified that the Supreme Court's decision only addressed income from leasing out property as business income. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court did not provide any findings or rulings regarding income under other heads, such as maintenance charges and air conditioning hire charges. Consequently, the High Court held that the rental income derived from house property should be treated as business income based on the Supreme Court's judgment. However, the Court differentiated maintenance charges and similar fees, stating that they should be assessed as "income from other sources" based on a previous judgment of the High Court. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant regarding income from leasing out the property but in favor of the Revenue regarding maintenance charges and air conditioning hire charges.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant for income from leasing out the property and in favor of the Revenue for maintenance charges. The second question of law was left open, and the tax case appeal was disposed of without costs.