SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
National Leasing Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income - Respondent
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2007, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2015, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.685 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2015 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2007, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2007 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2007
Decided on : 21-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w. Mr. Pheroze Mehta, Abinash Pradhan, Ms. Garima Agrawal and Mr. Yash Dedhia i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kumar

Rental income from properties should be classified as business income when leasing is the primary business activity of the assessee.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 260A - Assessment of rental income - The court examined whether rental income from properties should be assessed as 'Income from house property' or 'Income from profits and gains of business' - The Tribunal held it as 'income from house property' based on the Supreme Court's ruling in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. - The court found that the assessee's primary business was leasing properties, thus income should be classified as business income. (Paras 1, 12, 28)

(B) Legal Principles - The classification of income depends on the nature of the business and the main objectives of the assessee as per its memorandum of association - The court emphasized the importance of consistency in tax assessments across assessment years. (Paras 20, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, incorporated in 1983, primarily engaged in leasing properties, contested the classification of its rental income for multiple assessment years. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous Supreme Court ruling, which the appellant argued was misapplied.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the rental income derived from leasing properties was assessable as income from profits and gains of business, not as income from house property.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Tribunal erred in classifying the income and whether the income should be treated as business income based on the nature of the assessee's activities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the income derived from leasing properties was the primary business of the assessee, thus should be classified as business income, overturning the Tribunal's decision.

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. This batch of appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, filed by the common appellant are directed against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The question of law which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the rent income derived by the appellant (for short ‘the assessee’) from its properties was assessable under the head ‘Income from house property’ or as claimed by the assessee under the head ‘Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business’.

2. The nine assessment years in question relevant to each of these appeals and the date of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are as follows:-

Sr.N o.

Income Tax Appeal No.

Assessment Year with regard to which the Appeal is filed

Impugned Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal

1.

ITXA/686/2007

1989-1990

Dt. 22/02/2006 Assessed it as “income from house property”

2

ITXA/558/2007

1990-1991

Dt. 22/02/2006 Assessed it as “income from house property”

3

ITXA/559 /2007

1991-1992

Dt.22/02/2006 Asessed it as “income from house property”

4

ITXA/685/2007

1992-1993

Dt. 22/02/2006 Assessed it as “income from house property”

5

ITXA/764/2007

1995-1996

Dt. 22/02/2006 Assessed it as “income from house property”

6

ITXA/702/2015

2005-2006

Dt. 28/08/2014 Assessed it as “income from house property”

7

ITXA/338/2015

2006-2007

Dt. 28/08/2014 Assessed it as “income from house property”

8

ITXA/337/2015

2007-2008

Dt. 28/08/2014 Assessed it as “income from house property”

9

ITXA/339/2015

2008-2009

Dt.28/08/2014 Assessed it as “income from house property”

3. The facts in relation to each of the aforesaid period not being different, for convenience we refer to the facts as set out in the lead appeal [Income Tax Appeal No.685 of 2007].

4. The assessee was incorporated in the year 1983 under the Companies Act, 1956, with the main object to carry on the business of leasing of immovable properties including land and buildings, plant and machinery etc. as discernible from its memorandum of association, a copy of which is part of the paper-book.

5. It is assessee’s case that since inception, the assessee is engaged in the business of purchasing and renting properties, as also the entire income of the assessee is based on the income received from leasing its properties. It had no other source of income. It is stated that since 1989 till date, the assessee has leased about 85 properties. The business model of the assessee is stated to be such, that it obtains loan from financial institutions for the purchase of properties, it purchases properties and then provides the same on lease. The lease income is thus the only income of the assessee.

6. The assessee contended that from the year 1983 to 1989, its lease income as derived from its properties was assessed by the respondents under the head “Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business”.

7. For the Assessment Year 1989-90, the assessee filed its return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), under the head “income from house property”. On 30 January 1992, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to show cause as to why the annual letting value of the leased premises should not be the higher figure. The assessee responded to the said show cause notice, by its letter dated 17 February 1992, disputing such contentions (although such issue is not the subject matter of the lead appeal). On 30 March 1992 the Assessing Officer passed an Assessment Order for assessment year 1989-90 (relevant to the lead appeal) under Section 143(3) of the Act whereby the Assessing Officer inter alia calculated the annual value of the property on the basis of gro

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top