2018 (11) TMI 118 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of income - treatment to rent from building as well as service & amenity charges - income from House property or income from other sources - Held that - Mere splitting of rent is not decisive of the issue and each case has to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Keeping in mind above principles laid down in the judicial pronouncements, we are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rent for use of building as well as maintenance/amenity charges has to be considered as income from house property. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). See case of H&M Housing Finance & Leasing P. Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 967 - ITAT MUMBAI

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of rent from building and service charges as income from house property or other sources.

Analysis:
The appeals before the ITAT Mumbai stemmed from the CIT(A)'s order concerning the classification of income for the AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14. The primary issue revolved around whether the rent from the building and service charges should be treated as income from house property or other sources. The Revenue contended that the services provided were separable from the building, while the CIT(A) relied on previous decisions and considered the amenities as integral to the rental services.

The Revenue raised two key grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. Firstly, they argued that the services provided were separable from the building and should not be considered as income from house property. Secondly, they cited a Supreme Court decision to support their stance that even inseparable services should be classified as income from other sources. However, the CIT(A) maintained that the amenities provided were essential for the lessees to utilize the premises and were integral to the rental services, thus classifying them as income from house property.

The CIT(A) emphasized the amenities provided by the builder, such as electricity, water supply, elevators, parking, and maintenance services, were crucial for the lessees and formed part of the rental agreement. The CIT(A) also highlighted previous Tribunal decisions supporting the classification of such amenities as income from house property. The Revenue's reliance on older case laws and the lack of substantial evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s reasoning led to the confirmation of the order.

In line with a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case, the ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The consistent interpretation of the nature of amenities and their integral connection to the rental property guided the decision. Consequently, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeals of Revenue were both dismissed, affirming the classification of the rent from the building and service charges as income from house property.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai's judgment clarified the classification of income from building rent and service charges, emphasizing the inseparable nature of amenities provided with the rental property. The decision underscored the importance of amenities in determining the income classification and upheld the CIT(A)'s order based on established legal principles and precedents.