9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief facts of the case are stated. as follows: The assessee-company offered the rental income of the building as business income on the ground that the income from letting out was to be treated as business income. One of the objects of the company is to carry on the business of dealers in shares, stocks, debentures, bonds, obligations, chits, securities and to purchase, take on lease or in exchange, hire or otherwise acquire and deal in any movable or immovable property. The assessee had constructed a building at No.8, Cathedral Road, Madras. The assessee leased out the office space to two companies in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The other floors, as and when constructed, were leased out to other tenants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the total income from the building has to be assessed only under one head and cannot be split into two and that the case has to be looked at the businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting out of the building was a business or exploitation of the property by an owner. That apart, the Tribunal also relied on the decision of the apex court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 wherein the apex court observed that a company formed with a specific object of acquiring properties not with the view to leasing them as property but to selling them and turning them to account even by way of leasing them out as an integral part of its business, cannot be said to treat them as land owner, but as trader. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration the views taken in CIT v. Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 47 (Cal), CIT v. B. Nagi Reddy [1984] 147 ITR 337 (Mad) and CIT v. V. S. T. Motors P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 155 (Mad)., remitted the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider the question of law afresh, in accordance with law. In furtherance of the said remittance, the Tribunal rendered a finding in favour of the assessee that the income from the letting out of property is only a business income. The Tribunal also took into account the material facts for holding that the income derived out of letting out of the property is business income finding that the property in question, viz., the building at No.8, Cathedral Road, Chennai, is used exclusively for commercial purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from house property.-The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Income from house property'." While interpreting section 22 of the Act, this court, in the said decision 14 of the assessee's own case reported in CIT v. Sanmar Holdings Ltd. (No.2) [2005] 272 ITR 345 held that the statutory burden is cast on the Revenue authorities, viz., the appellant therein that they should satisfy whether the building or land in question is owned by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
