TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead income from house property. We are of the opinion that assessee’s income has to be considered only under the head ‘’income from business’’. Ordered accordingly - Decided in favor of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 689 & 690/CHNY/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. Department by : Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT ORDER Per Abraham P. George, Accountant Member These are appeals of the assessee for the impugned assessment years, assailing the treatment of its income under the head income from house property instead of business . 2. Facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of building, selli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to tax by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head income from house property , for all the impugned assessment years. 3. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that though there were two separate agreements, one for renting out the premises and one for providing services object of the assessee was renting out the IT park alongwith various services. As per the assessee, Ambit IT park was approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology through its order dated 30.06.2009. Contention of the assessee was that it was engaged in the development of IT park and providing services alongside leasing out the infrastructural facility so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom house property or business. Further according to him, judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd (supra) was by a five judge Bench and had to be given preference over the later judgments by two judge Benches of the same court. With this view, he upheld the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also relied on a judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar and Associates vs. ACIT (2017) 394 ITR 592. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, strongly assailing the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the partnership deed of the assessee firm gave its object as purchasing, selling, consolidating any land and plots, constructing, promoting, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that assessee was a recognized IT park and had rented it out to various software companies. It is also not disputed that assessee had entered into two agreements with its lessees, one for renting out the space and other for providing services and maintenance. The question before us is whether the payments received by the assessee through these two agreements are to be considered under the head income from house property or income from other sources or income from business. Ld. Assessing Officer himself had observed that assessee had leased out the space alongwith a host of supporting features which helped its business. Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han one agreement or one lease deed, the transaction is one. As all the agreements are entered into contemporaneously and the object is to enjoy the entire property viz: building, furniture and the accessories as a whole which is necessary for carrying on the business, then the income derived there from cannot be separated based on the separate agreement entered into between the parties. What has to be seen is, what was the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If it is found applying such principle that the intention is for letting out the property or any portion thereof, the same may be considered as rental income or income from properties. In case, if it is found that the main intention is to exploit immovable pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the rental income to be the income taxable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . It is an admitted fact in the instant case that the assessee company has only one business and that is of leasing its property and earning rent therefrom. Thus, even on the factual aspect, we do not find any substance in what has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee squarely covers the facts of the case involved in the appeals. The business of the company is to lease its property and to earn rent and therefore, the income so earned should be treated as its business income . It is to be noted that Hon ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
