2017 (10) TMI 877 - AT - Income Tax

Income from house property - income earned in consideration of having given rights to have play hoardings etc. - Held that - The assessee Society is a tenement co-operative housing society in which ownership of the land and building vests in the society itself and not the member of society. The consideration received by the assessee is for the right to install the hoarding rather than rent for hoarding installed by the assessee. The above observations are thus equally valid in the present context. In view of the above discussions as also bearing in mind entirety of the case hold that the income earned by the assessee in consideration of having given rights to have play hoardings etc. are taxable as income from house property. Accordingly deduction under section 24(a) was indeed admissible in the present case. Direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(a) as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of claim under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Classification of rent income from letting out land as 'Income from House Property' or 'Income from Other Sources'.
3. Claim of deduction of 30% of rent income under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Application of case laws to the facts of the case.
5. Appeal against the decision of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of claim under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act
The assessee, a cooperative housing society, received hoarding rent treated as income taxable under 'income from house property'. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim citing that the land on which hoardings were erected cannot be termed as 'land appurtenant thereto'. However, the Tribunal noted that the society owned the land and buildings, distinguishing it from individual members. The legal position recognized this distinction, making the authorities' stand legally unsustainable.

Issue 2: Classification of rent income
The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) contended that since the society did not own the residential buildings, rent from hoardings cannot be considered 'income from house property'. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the land was appurtenant to the building and part of the housing complex. The Tribunal clarified that the consideration was for the right to install hoardings, not rent for hoardings installed by the society, thus qualifying as income from house property.

Issue 3: Claim of deduction under Section 24(a)
The Tribunal found that the deduction under Section 24(a) was admissible as the income earned by the assessee was taxable as income from house property. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee, providing relief accordingly.

Issue 4: Application of case laws
The Tribunal highlighted the misinterpretation of the Calcutta High Court's judgment by the CIT(A), emphasizing that the income was for the right to install hoardings, not for the hoardings themselves. The Tribunal clarified that when the consideration is for letting out the roof rather than the hoardings, the tax treatment differs, supporting the assessee's position.

Issue 5: Appeal decision
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the income earned by the assessee was taxable as income from house property, and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 24(a) as claimed by the assessee, granting relief to the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the assessee, recognizing the legal ownership structure of the cooperative housing society and the nature of the income derived from hoarding rights, thereby allowing the claim under Section 24(a) and classifying the income as 'income from house property'.