Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court had to consider whether the income from letting of property is assessable as “profits and gains of business” or as “income from house property” and what are the tests to be applied. HELD by the Supreme Court:

(i) A mere entry in the object clause showing a particular object would not be the determinative factor to arrive at an conclusion whether the income is to be treated as income from business and such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case, viz., whether a particular business is letting or not;

(ii) Each case has to be looked at from a businessman’s point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing can by its very nature be a commercial asset. A commercial asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else, and business may be carried on with practically all things. Therefore, it is not possible to say that a particular activity is business because it is concerned with an asset with which trade is commonly carried on. There is nothing to support the proposition that certain assets are commercial assets in their very nature;

(iii) Where there is a letting out of premises and collection of rents the assessment on property basis may be correct but not so, where the letting or sub-letting is part of a trading operation. The diving line is difficult to find; but in the case of a company with its professed objects and the manner of its activities and the nature of its dealings with its property, it is possible to say on which side the operations fall and to what head the income is to be assigned (Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal‘ [44 ITR 362 (SC) & East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [(1961) 42 ITR 49] as well as the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in ‘Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax‘ [1964 (5) SCR 807 referred)

Share this:

Related Judgements

  1. K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) P. Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad)Assessee has been consistently offering the incomes under the head “Income on House Property” as far as the receipts of rents are concerned and under the head “Business” as far as the service fee and management fee on maintenance are … K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) P. Ltd…
  2. ACIT (Agr. IT) vs. Netley ‘B’ Estate (Supreme Court)In exercising legislative power, the legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectivelyRead more ›
  3. CIT vs. Vatika Township (Supreme Court – Full Bench)S. 113 Proviso inserted by FA 2002 w.e.f. 01.06.2002 to impose surcharge in search assessments is not clarificatory or retrospective. Suresh Gupta 297 ITR 322 (SC) overruled There cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law. Such a law has to be unambiguous and should…
  4. Taparia Tools Ltd vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)U/s 36(1)(iii) when the interest was actually incurred by the assessee, which follows the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of full amount in the assessment year in which it is paid. The High Court wrongly applied the “Matching Concept” to deny the deduction…
  5. CIT vs. M/s Veena Developers (Supreme Court)There was much debate on the answer given in para (b) above. It was argued by Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, that a project which is cleared as “residential plus commercial” project cannot be treated as housing project and therefore, this direction is contrary to the provisions of…