3. Principal CIT vs. City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 85
(Bom.) Date of order: 13th
January, 2020 A.Y.: 2010-11
Income – Business income or income from
house property – Sections 22 and 28 of ITA, 1961 – Company formed with object
of developing commercial complexes – Setting up of commercial complex and
rendering of services to occupants – Income earned assessable as business
income
The assessee was a private limited company
incorporated with the object of construction and running of commercial and
shopping malls. The assessee set up a commercial complex-cum-shopping mall and
the operations commenced during F.Y. 2009-10. The assessee let out various
shops in this commercial complex dealing with various products.
Apart from letting out the premises, the
assessee also provided various services to the occupants such as security
services, housekeeping, maintenance, lighting, repairs to air conditioners,
marketing and promotional activities, advertisement and such other activities.
The premises were let out on leave and licence basis, and the compensation was
based on revenue-sharing basis. For the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee declared its
income under the head ‘Income from business’. The A.O., however, treated it as
income from house property.
The Tribunal held that the income was
assessable as business income.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High
Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
‘i) The object of
the assessee was clearly to acquire, develop, and let out the commercial
complex. The assessee provided even marketing and promotional activities. The
intention of the assessee was a material circumstance and the objects of
association, and the kind of services rendered, clearly pointed out that the
income was from business.
ii)
All the factors cumulatively taken demonstrated that the assessee had intended
to enter into a business of renting out commercial space to interested parties.
The findings rendered by the Tribunal on assessment of the factual position
before it that the income in question had to be treated as business income was
justified.’
