Summary
Receipts from sub-licensed shops and stalls were taxable as house-property income on the established facts. Deemed ownership was undisputed, and an object clause authorising subletting did not prove a letting business. The Tribunal’s unchallenged findings showed ordinary rental exploitation and incidental services, not a systematic service activity constituting business.
Issues
- Whether the shopping-centre receipts were house-property income or business income.
Provisions considered
- Sections 22 and 27(iiib), read with Section 269UA(f), Income Tax Act, 1961The appellant’s deemed ownership was undisputed; the house-property head applied unless facts established the claimed business character. (¶ 10–16)
Held
- An object clause is not conclusive. Classification turns on actual circumstances and whether letting constitutes business rather than exploitation of property as owner. (¶ 14–17)
- The Tribunal found incidental maintenance, utilities and security charges inseparable from rent, without established systematic business services. Those findings were not shown perverse, and the appellant supplied insufficient contrary material. (¶ 17–18)
- Chennai Properties and Rayala Corporation depended on their proved letting-business facts and did not compel business-income treatment here. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeals dismissed with costs; assessment under the house-property head upheld.