9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of income derived from property under different heads of income for assessment purposes. Analysis: The appeal raised the issue of whether the income derived from a property should be assessed under the head 'income from house property' or under a different source. The contention was based on the property not being registered in the assessee's name, leading to a debate on the nature of the income. The respondent argued that the assessee was the owner of the property due to a perpetual lease granted by the Delhi Administration and an Award on dissolution of a firm. The income, though labeled as 'income from commission' in an agreement, was claimed to be assessable as income from house property. The agreement detailed that the income was based on providing a portion of a factory building for a shoe manufacturing unit, with a commission on total sales. The absence of a landlord-tenant relationship indicated that the income was not rent but derived from sharing profits on a commission basis. The Tribunal rejected the representation that the income should be assessed under 'income from house property' due to the nature of the agreement and the absence of a rental relationship. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous judgment, stating that the assessee was the property owner under the perpetual lease and the dissolution award. While rejecting the departmental representative's argument and the AAC's view that the income should be assessed under specific IT Act provisions for house property income, the Tribunal emphasized the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The income, described as commission in the agreement, could not be categorized as rental income. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the AAC's order and allowed the departmental appeal, concluding that the income derived from the property was not assessable under the head 'income from house property' based on the specific circumstances and nature of the agreement.
|
