TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and machinery but would be treated as amenities, which are necessary for the use of any building - the assessee had not placed any material on record to show that the building had peculiar amenities with which the building could be treated as a "plant" and not a building simplicitor - No material has been brought on record to indicate that the building had peculiar amenities, which could be commercially exploited such as facilities of sterilization of surgical instruments and bandages or an operation theatre - The Tribunal was rightly of the view that the building which was leased out by the appellant was nothing else but a building simplicitor and was not a building, which was equipped with specialized plant and machinery –assessee is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, machineries, generators, lifts or other amenities to any Doctor or to a medical institution. Pursuant to the said resolution, a lease deed was executed in favour of Deva Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. dated 2nd May, 1989 to lease out the building premises at a monthly rent of ₹ 25,000/- per month. The building let out was fitted with lifts, generator, tubewell and electrical fittings. The relevant portion of the lease deed is extracted hereunder:- And whereas the lessor has decided in its meeting held on 2.4.89 to lease out the building to the lessee for the purpose of running a nursing home and the lessee has agreed to take the said building from the lessor on lease on the terms and conditions contained herein. From the above recit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use property. The appellant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether, the income of ₹ 3,23,000/- is income from business and profession and not income from house property? (ii) Whether, the learned Tribunal has totally misread and misinterpreted the lease agreement between the appellant and M/s Deva Nursing Home (P) Ltd. to hold that the receipts derived thereunder were taxable at the hands of the appellant as income from house property and not income from business and profession ? (iii) Whether, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant had simply let out the building to M/s Deva N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of the lease deed would make it apparently clear that only the building was let out and the mere fact that the building had a lift, tubewell and electrical fittings would not make any material difference as these were amenities, which were necessary for the use of building and was not sufficient to convert the building into a commercial asset. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision in Shambhu Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 263 ITR 143 wherein the Supreme Court held that letting out a portion of the premises with furnitures and fixtures and providing service to occupants would be an income assessable as an income from property. Section 14 of the Act classifies income under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings 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 . From a perusal of Section 14 read with Section 22 it indicates that income from house property would be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources . The intention of the legislature in making rent from property chargeable under the heading income from other sources is apparently clear. In Universal Plast Ltd. (supra) while considering as to whether the income from leasing out of assets would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant contended that the facts in the instant case has to be gone into for the purpose of holding whether it was a business income or income from property. The learned counsel contended that the appellant's intention was to run a hospital but since it had no experience it made a transient alternate arrangement to let out the building along with the plants and machinery for commercial exploitation of its commercial assets so that the income from such letting could be treated as a business income. This contention is misplaced. We also find that reliance by the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sultan Brothers' case (supra) is misplaced. The Supreme Court in that case considered a case where the assessee constructed a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
