Renting of property for commercial activities — When a property is exploited by way of “commercial activities”, income so earned is assessable as business income, as held by MumTrib in ITO v Shanaya Enterprises — In favour of: The assessee; ITA No 3648/Mum/2010: (AY 2006–2007).
Decided on: 30 June 2011.
Definition of “rent” in s 194-I is not conclusive of the taxability of the related income under the head “income from house property”
ITO v Shanaya Enterprises
ITAT BENCH “J”, MUMBAI
ITA No. 3648/MUM/2010
Assessment Year: 2006-2007
Pramod Kumar, AM and Vijaya Pal Rao, JM
Decided on: 30 June 2011
Counsel appeared:
Shri S.K. Singh, (DR) for the appellant
None for the respondent
Order
Per: Pramod Kumar, JM:
1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has called into question
correctness of Ld. CIT (A)’s order dated 12th March, 2010, in the matter of
assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2006-
07, on the following ground:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing to treat
income from letting out of studio under the head ‘Profits and
Gains of Business or Profession’ instead of income under the
head ‘income from house property’ by not relying upon the
decision in the care of CIT v. Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. reported
in 51 ITR 353.
2. The relevant material facts, so far as necessary for adjudication on issue in
dispute before us, are like this. The assessee is stated to be carrying out business of
letting out of studio for producing television serials, advertisement films, short
documentaries etc., in as much as the premises is let out, for the said purposes, on
hourly basis for a unit of eight hours each to production houses. During the
course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the
assessee has income from such hire charges received aggregating to Rs.28,89,573,
but, in view of claim of several expenses to earn these receipts, net loss is disclosed
at Rs. 89,942/-. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has claimed credit
for taxes deducted at source, aggregating to Rs. 2,46,615, and, on most of the TDS
certificates, nature of receipt is shown as ‘rent’. It was in this backdrop that the
Assessing Officer required the assessee to show cause as to why all the receipts not be
treated as ‘rent’ and, accordingly, be taxed under ‘Income from House Property’.
3. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee lets out the property on hourly
basis for use as shooting location, but it is not a case of renting out the property
simplicitor. It was explained that complex commercial activities are involved in this
process inasmuch as existing furniture and fixtures in the premises have to be
modified to suit the requirements of the clients, from time to time, and to
accommodate various props, that a separate meter is provided for recording
consumption of electricity on hourly basis, that security arrangements have to be
put in place for ensuring safety of cinema photographic equipment, that temporary
structures and frameworks have to be set up so as to enable client to erect the
necessary props and sheds, that the facilities of plumbers, electricians, carpenters
and painters etc., have to be provided as per client requirements, and that
considerable marketing activities have to be undertaken to sell the studio time to
prospective clients. The assessee also submitted a list of clients so as to demonstrate
that the studio facilities have been used by film industry, TV industry and generally
media and broadcasting industry. None of these submissions, however, impressed
the Assessing Officer. He was of the view that, on the above facts, issue is covered
against the assessee by Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT v.
Shambhu Investments Ltd., 263 ITR 143, because ‘if it is found that main intention
is for letting out the property or any portion thereof, the same must be considered as rental
income or income from property’. The Assessing Officer also noted that “from the
facts of the case and details submitted by the assessee, the services rendered by the
assessee, if any, to various occupants according to the list of occupants, are not
separately charged and the rent payable is inclusive of all charges to the assessee”.
The Assessing Officer then proceeded to refer to Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment
in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 51 ITR 353 by observing as
follows:-
In the case of M/s Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC),
a five judges’ Bench of the apex court herein gave a guideline that to come
to a conclusion of nature of any receipts attached to a property. The test
comprises of three questions, namely
(a) Was it the intention in making the lease—and it maters not
whether there is one lease or two, i.e., separate leases in respect
of the furniture and building—that the two should be enjoyed
together?
(b) Was it the intention to make the letting of the two practically
one letting?
(c) Would one have been let alone, and a lease of it accepted, without
the other?
If the answers to the first two questions are in the affirmative and the
last in the negative, then it has to be held that the lettings would be
inseparable.
In the instant case, the answers of the first two questions are in
affirmative and the last in the negative. The assessee was claimed that
there was some infrastructure given to the parties and therefore the
same is business. However, it is very clear from the facts of the case
that without the said facilities, the premises would not have been let in
the first place. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is
totally applicable to the facts of the case.
4. As regards assessee in contention that studio business activities are activities in
an organized manner, Assessing Officer simply brushed them aside by stating that
the contention ‘is general in nature’. On the contention that assessee is rendering
complex services, the Assessing Officer observed that ‘the assessee is covered by the
Calcutta High Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Ltd. v. CIT (supra)’. The
Assessing Officer thus proceeded to tax receipts under the head income from house
property, and restricted the deductions to 30% of charges received as for ‘repairs’.
Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who reversed
the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:-
I have carefully gone through the rival submissions and I am inclined
to agree with the contention of the assessee that the income received
from letting out of the bungalow/studio isn’t “income from house
property” as held by the AO. In the case of Shabvhu Invt. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT,
the premises where let out on monthly rent basis for providing table
space to the occupants. In that case, assessee has received interest-free
deposit to the extent of entire cost of the property, whereas in the case of
the assessee it is claimed that no deposit is received by it. In the case of
Shambhu Invt. Ltd, their lordships held that property was not
commercially exploited as the assessee had already received interest free
deposit to the extent of cost of the property. In the case of the assessee,
this is not so. The giving on hire the bungalow intermittently for a brief
period based on number of hours with full facilities for the purpose of
creating panorama concept is a commercial activity. Thus to my mind,
the appellant is exploiting the immovable property by was of
commercial activity and in that event it must be held as business
income as held in the case of M/s. Shambhu Investments P. Ltd. v. CIT.
Since the assessee has not received any deposit from its clients, the main
objective of the assessee is to commercially exploit the said property for
earning the income. The facts discussed above coupled with the fact that
the assessee has obtained service tax registration for the income earned
from hiring out of bungalow/studio, it becomes quite clear that the
assessee is engaged in the commercial activities of earning of such
income. The AO, is therefore, directed to treat the receipts of the assessee
of Rs. 28,89,573/- as business receipts and not to treat the same as income
from house property. The ground of appeal is allowed.
5. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied by the stand so taken by the Ld. CIT(A), and
is in appeal before us.
6. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, but none appeared for the
assessee. We have also carefully perused the material on record and duly considered
factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.
7. We find that in CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd’s case (249 ITR 7), which
was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported at 263 ITR at page
143, Their Lordships had an occasion to elaborately deal with judicial precedents on
whether rental income could be taxed under the head business profits, and Their
Lordships concluded as follows:
Taking a sum total of aforesaid discussions, it clearly appears that
merely because income is attached to any immovable property
cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income
from property; what has to be seen is what was the primary object
of the assessee while exploiting the property. If it is found,
applying such test, that main intention is for letting out the
property, or any part thereof, the same must be considered as rental
income or income from property. In case, it is found that the main
intention is to exploit the immovable property by way of complex
commercial activities, in that event, it must be held as business
income.
8. It is thus clear that when a property is exploited by way of “complex commercial
activities”, income so earned by exploiting the property is to be taxed as business
income. Viewed in this perspective, and having regard to the fact that it is not a case
of simplicitor renting of premises but significant value addition to premises by
providing all incidental and support services to facilitate cine shooting and related
activities, the income is earned by complex commercial activities which can only be
taxed under the head business income. The fact that it is clearly a commercial
adventure, involving marketing and promotions as also appropriate improvisations
on a case to cases basis, takes these receipts out of the ambit of income under the
head property income. Similarly, as regards classification of the nature of payments
in the TDS certificates, nothing on turns on the same because the nature of
payment, as the law is well settled, need not be the same in the hands of the
recipient as in the case of the payer. That apart, it is only elementary that
definition of ‘rent’ in section 194-I is not conclusive of taxability of the related
income under the head ‘income from house property’. The conclusions arrived at by
the Ld. CIT (A) thus do no call for any interference.
9. A lot of emphasis has been laid, by the Assessing Officer, on Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers (supra), but we are unable to see as
how does it advance his cause. The Assessing Officer, as we have noted earlier while
setting out the facts, has referred to this judgment and claimed to have applied the
ratio of the same. As a matter of facts, the precise grievance raised by the Assessing
Officer in this appeal is that contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (supra), the CIT(A) has given the impugned
relief. The stand of the Assessing Officer, as also grievance raised by the Assessing
Officer, is devoid of any legally sustainable merits, for more reasons than one.
Firstly, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s judgment in the case of Shambhu Investments
Ltd. (supra), which has been approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court and which clearly
settles the issue in favour of the assessee, has duly taken into account Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers (supra) and yet reached the
conclusion that where complex commercial activities are involved in exploiting a
property, income can only be taxed as business income. There is thus no conflict
between these two judgments; quite to the contrary, Shambhu Investments (supra)
judgment merely follows law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sultan Brothers. Secondly, in the case of Sultan Brothers (supra), Their Lordships
were in seisin of a case in which no services were being rendered by the assessee,
there was no business at all, and the true question was under which head income
from rental was to be taxed when building is let out with furniture and fillings.
The assessee’s plea that it should be taxable as business income, which was not
anyway decided in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble High Court either, was rejected
at the threshold itself, and then Their Lordships dealt with the issue as to whether
it should be taxed as income from other sources or as income from house property.
As a matter of fact, Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in this case, categorically observed
that “These (lease covenants) do not at all show that lesser was rendering any
service in the hotel business carried on by the lessee, or in fact doing any
business at all. On the facts of this, we are unable to agree that the letting out
of the building amounted to the doing of business. The income under the lease
cannot, therefore, be assessed under section 10 of the IT Act as the income of a
business”. These observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court are in sharp contrast with
our findings in the present case in which assessee is actively, and on day to day
basis, engaged in organized business activities and is rendering significant services.
The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court were in the context of whether it
should be taxable as business income or as income from other sources. The
Assessing Officer was thus clearly in error in applying these observations in the
context of an unrelated question. Finally, the dispute in Sultan Brother’s case
(supra), which was finally adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, was not whether
an income is to be taxed under the head business income or under the head income
from house property, but the issue really was whether the income from giving a
hotel, along with furniture and fixtures, was to be taxed under the head income from
other sources or under the head income from house property. The observations made
by Hon’ble Supreme Court have no relevance in the present context of the question
whether income could be taxed under the head business income or under the head
income from other sources. Revenue thus does not gain anything from reference to
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers’ judgment
(supra) either.
10. In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirely of the case, we
approve conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the
matter.
11. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment