Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax. Hyd. v. M/S Rajeswari Warehouse Complex

Telangana HC23 Feb 2010RC/6/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a reference to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the activity of leasing out godowns constitutes income from property rather than business. Relying on East India Housing, the question was answered in the negative.

What did the court decide?

The reference question was answered in the negative; the activity does not fall within the term of 'business'.

The Commissioner of Income Tax. Hyd. Vs M/S Rajeswari Warehouse… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

R.C.No.6 of 1996

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao)

¶4

Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondent herein.

¶5

In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the question involved is “whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the activity of the assessee amounts to business and the assessee was entitled to registration/continuation of registration for the assessment year 1985-86 ?”

¶6

In brief, the facts that gave rise to the present reference are that the assessee, which is a partnership firm, has constructed godowns and leased out the same to Food Corporation of India. It filed return of income admitting income of Rs.2,81,540/- in respect of the assessment year 198586. It also filed Form No. 12 claiming continuation of the registration, which it had earlier. However, while completing the assessment on a total income of Rs. 3,24,270/- the Income Tax Officer, the primary assessing Authority did not accept the assesee’s version on the ground that the activity of letting out the godowns does not constitute “business”, but it has to be treated as an income from the property. Thereupon, on an appeal filed by the assessee, the same was allowed by the appellate authority holding that such activity carried on by the petitioner does constitute “business”. Having regard to the fact that registration was granted to the petitioner earlier, the appellate authority held that the same needs to be

¶7

continued. Aggrieved thereby, the Department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and through order dated 29.4.1994, the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present reference.

¶8

In so far as facts are concerned, it amply transpired that except the activity of collecting rents, there is no other activity being carried on by the petitioner. In support, the Tribunal sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Phabiomal & Sons (^[1] ) wherein it was held that “such activity” does constitute “business”.

¶9

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in East India Housing & Land Development Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (^[2] ) , wherein it was held that such activity does not constitute business and necessarily it has to be treated as income from the properties. In support of this contention learned counsel sought to place reliance upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mithila Properties Publication & Contractor Enterprises (P) Ltd., (^[3] ) and that of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lakshmi Company & Others (^[4] ) . In these two decisions, the Courts after taking into consideration the pros and cons of such activity, amply held that such activity does not fall within the term of ‘business”.

¶10

In East India Housing² , the Supreme Court held as under:

¶11

“The income received by the appellant from shops is indisputably income from property; so is the income from stalls from occupants. The character of the income is not altered merely because some stalls remain occupied by the same occupants and the remaining stalls are occupied by a shifting class of occupants. The primary source of income from the stalls is occupation of the stalls, and it is a matter of little moment that the occupation which is the source

¶12

of the income is temporary. The income-tax authorities were, in our judgment, right in holding that the income received by the appellant was assessable under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”

¶13

In view of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Supreme Court and there being no other decision cited across the bar controverting, it is held that the question referred to has to be answered in the negative, namely to the effect that such activity does not fall within the term of ‘business’.

¶14

The reference is answered accordingly.

¶15

(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)

¶16

__________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J)

¶17

Date: 23^rd February, 2010

¶18

[1] 158 ITR 773 [2] 42 ITR 49 [3] 228 ITR 713 [4] 133 ITR 904

The Commissioner of Income Tax. Hyd. v. M/S Rajeswari Warehouse Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax. Hyd. v. M/S Rajeswari Warehouse Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Committee, fathekhanpet /Mosque Kalan Vs Md. Saleemur Rahman, S/o late Md. Ali Saheb

The Managing Committee, Fathekhanpet Mosque Kalan, Vs Md. Saleem Ur Rahman

A.P. State Financial Corporation Vs M/s Godavari Oxygen Pvt. Limited (In Liquidation)

The Comm.of Income Tax. Hyd. Vs M/S Ushodayas Shipping Pvt.Ltd. Hyd.

The Comm.Tax.Hyd. Vs M/S Mini Wool Insulation Ltd. Hyd.

M/S Hyderabad Chemical Products Limited, Vs The State of Ap