2016 (5) TMI 63 - AT - Income Tax

Incomes received from leasing out of hotels - whether are to be taxed under the head Income from house property ? - Held that - Deciding factor is not the ownership of land or lease but nature of activity of the assessee and nature of operation in relation to them. In the present case the assessee is a company and it is not involved in any activity other than leasing out of these hotels. The fact that the said activity is mentioned under other objects in the memorandum of association of the company and not in the main objects is immaterial to decide the issue in question. In a judgment of the hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Capital Foundry and Engineering Works v. CIT 1981 (11) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court very clearly held that once the profits or gains are made from the exploitation of a commercial asset then whether the assessee carries on business himself or it had been run by another person as a lessee makes no difference. In the present case similar is the situation. The judgment in the case of Dal Chand and Sons v. CIT 1967 (12) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court was later followed by the hon ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Nauharchand Chananram v. CIT 1970 (10) TMI 12 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court (P&H) also. Thus we hold that the lease rental received by the assessee is to be taxed under the head Income from business - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of income from leased hotels as "income from house property" or "business income."
2. Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of income
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the treatment of income from leased hotels. The Assessing Officer contended that the income should be taxed as "income from house property" due to the absence of business activities by the assessee. The Commissioner upheld this decision, citing relevant judgments. However, the assessee argued that the lease income constituted business income, supported by substantial investments in hotel construction and operations. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the facts, emphasizing the organized business activities of the assessee in hotel management. The Tribunal referred to precedents like Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT and Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT to establish that continuous organized activities for profit qualify as business income. The Tribunal concluded that the lease rental should be taxed as "Income from business" based on the nature of operations and activities carried out by the assessee.

Issue 2: Deduction under section 80-IC
The denial of deduction under section 80-IC was a consequential aspect of the classification of income. The Tribunal's decision to tax the lease rental as business income also implied eligibility for the deduction. By allowing the appeal of the assessee and classifying the income as "Income from business," the Tribunal implicitly acknowledged the eligibility for the deduction under section 80-IC. The Tribunal's ruling encompassed both issues, ensuring that the income from leased hotels was appropriately categorized and the corresponding tax treatment and deductions were aligned with the business nature of the activities conducted by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment in this case clarified the classification of income from leased hotels as "Income from business" rather than "income from house property." The decision was supported by a detailed analysis of the organized business activities undertaken by the assessee, in line with legal precedents and the nature of operations. The ruling not only resolved the primary issue but also implicitly addressed the eligibility for deductions under section 80-IC, providing a comprehensive resolution to the appeal.