9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue has preferred these tax case appeals. 2.According to the appellant / Revenue, the respondent / assessee had received rental income from M/s.SBI Home Finance Ltd and claimed the same as business income in their returns filed for the assessment years in question. The returns were originally processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. After scrutiny of the returns, notices under section 148 came to be issued, on the premise that the income from letting out the property owned by the respondent / assessee had to be assessed under the head 'income from house property', based on the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd [(2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad)]. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials placed before this court. 5.Admittedly, the respondent / assessee had let out the commercial premises together with amenities on lease to M/s.SBI Home Finance Limited. The claim of the assessee treating the income received from lease/licencing the business centre as 'business income', was disallowed by the assessing officer by observing that the income received from the house property has to be assessed under the head 'income from house property'. The orders of the assessing officer passed under section 143(3) r/w 147, were also confirmed by the appellate authority. On the other hand, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s decision and the case in hand are same and similar to each other. The decisions on which the Department has relied on are in fact on different footing. In that case, the property was actually let out and in one of the case, the assessee had received rent in advance. The perusal of the record reveals that the commercial complex of the assessee has not been let out in the same manner as it is envisaged in section 22 of the Act..... 5.A plain reading of the above section show that there has to be a relation between the owner of the property and the occupier of the property as that of owner and tenant. In the given case, the assessee has not given the property on rent, but has given the commercial complex on licence for three years insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd., reported in 258 ITR 93 and that of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chennai properties and Investments Ltd. reported in (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad) are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the receipts itself are rental receipts. Whereas, in the present case, the assessee itself has retained the possession and there is no fiduciary relationship of landlord and tenant. 8.The Tribunal, by going into the individual aspects of the business to come to the conclusion that it is a case of warehousing business and, therefore, would fall only under the head 'business Income'. 9.In view of the well considered reasoning given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
