COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA vs. M/S. PARK HOTEL (P) LTD., 15, PARK STREET, CALCUTTA-16

CIVIL APPEAL No. 195/1996Supreme Court[1996] 1 S.C.R. 17005 January 1996Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR B5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, a lessee of certain properties, entered into an unregistered sub-lease deed with an associated company, M/s. Surrendra Overseas Limited (SOL). SOL received rental income from the sub-leased property. Initially, SOL objected to this income being taxed in its hands as 'income from house property' on the grounds of not being the owner, and the Tribunal ruled in its favour. Subsequently, for assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80, the Revenue sought to include the rental income received by SOL in the assessee's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held the income should be assessed as 'business income' and not included in the assessee's total income. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which held that the income should be assessed as business income and be the income received by SOL. At the assessee's instance, the Tribunal referred a question to the High Court, which answered it in favour of the assessee. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the matter must be remitted back to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the reference. Firstly, it was unclear whether the referred question covered only the inclusion of income in the assessee's total income or also the head of income ('house property' vs. 'business'). The Court noted that the High Court had not addressed the primary issue raised by the Tribunal: that due to the unregistered sub-lease deed, the property interest did not pass, and therefore, the income remained the assessee's. The Court also found that the High Court had not dealt with the Tribunal's reasoning that accepting the assessee's plea would lead to the income going untaxed, as it was previously held not taxable in SOL's hands. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh disposal in accordance with law and the observations made.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question referred to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertained only to the inclusion of income received by M/s. Surrendra Overseas Limited (SOL) in the assessee's total income, or if it also encompassed the issue of whether such income should be assessed under the head 'income from house property' or 'profits and gains of business or profession'. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that it had transferred a portion of its leasehold interest to SOL, and therefore, the income from the transferred properties should not be included in its total income. The assessee also contended that the income should be assessed under the head 'business'. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that since the sub-lease deed was unregistered, the interest in the property did not pass, and thus the income in question continued to be the assessee's income. The Revenue also argued that if the assessee's plea was accepted, the income would go untaxed as it was held not taxable in the hands of SOL. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to assess the income as 'business income', arguing it should be 'house property income'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA v. M/S. PARK HOTEL (P) LTD., 15, PARK STREET, CALCUTTA-16 JANUARY 5, 1996 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.J Income Tax Act, 1961 : Ss. 142, I 43, 256( I Hssessment--Assessee Company subleasing the leasehold properties under an unregistered lease deed to another associate co1npany--Rental inco1ne releived from lease hold properties--Assessntent of-Tribunal 1naking a referenc;e to High Court-High Court answerilzg the reference in .favour of assessee--Held, neither the reference clar~fied the issues nor the High Court addressed itse(f to the 111ain issue regarding effect o.f sub- lease under an unregistered lease deed--!vlatter re1nitted back to High Court D for decision qf reference afresh. E F G The assessee, A lessee of certain properties, sub-leased a portion of the said properties under an unregistered deed to another company, namely 'SOL' which was associated with the assessee-company. The rental income received from the sub-leased property was sought to be taxed in the hands of'SOL' as 'income from house property', which was objected to by 'SOL' on the ground that it was not the owner of the said proper

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →