2014 (6) TMI 326 - AT - Income Tax

Treatment of income - Receipt from property given on rent Claim of expenses - Held that - There is no evidence of any commercial activity carried on by the assessee - the company merely received rent in its capacity as owner of the property - it cannot be said that letting out would amount to commercial exploitation of the property - the income received by the assessee is assessable under the head Property Income thus, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) with regard to treatment of the income - there is no other activity carried on by the assessee and no intention is shown by the assessee to carry on any business - the fresh claim does not deserve any favourable consideration thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the income derived from the property should be treated as income from business or property.
2. Whether the claim of deduction for administrative expenses should be allowed against rental income.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a company engaged in construction but deriving income solely from letting out a property. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the rental income as income from house property, limiting the deduction to 30% of the Annual Letting Value (ALV). The company argued that letting out property was a main objective and income should be assessed as business income. The CIT(A) referred to Supreme Court judgments and concluded that the income falls under section 22 of the Income Tax Act as income from house property. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the company did not engage in any commercial activity related to the property, and the income was correctly assessed under "Property Income."

2. Regarding the claim for deduction of administrative expenses against rental income, the company contended that such expenses were allowable even if the income was treated as income from house property. The company cited administrative expenses listed in its schedule, arguing for consistency with previous assessments. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence of commercial activity by the company and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that without any business activity or intention shown by the company, the claim for additional expenditure could not be considered. Therefore, the appeal filed by the company was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessment treating the income as property income and disallowing the claim for additional administrative expenses deduction. The judgment highlighted the importance of the primary intention behind exploiting the property in determining the nature of income and reiterated the principle that income includible under one head of income cannot be taxed under another head.