Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A Nos. 1641 & 1203/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08
Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- A.C.I.T.- Circle-5, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCB 0999 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri A.K.Gupta, FCA For the Respondent : Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2016.
ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
ITA No.1641/Kol/2014 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 19.05.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-VI, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2006-07. ITA No.1203/Kol/2014 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-VI, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2007-08. The issues involved in both these appeals are identical and arise under same facts circumstances. These appeals were heard together. We deem it convenient to pass a common order.
The assessee, a private limited company, was incorporated on 15.04.1990. The main objects for which the Assessee was established are given in the clauses of Para III of the Memorandum and Articles of Association which are as under: “1) To acquire on a license or by purchase, lease, exchange, hire or otherwise land and property of any tenure, or premises in any part of India. 2) . ......... 3) To license or sub license or lease or sub lease or let such lands or property or premises or any part thereof and to provide such other facilities.”
On 16.04.1991 the Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s East India Hotels Limited (now renamed as EIH Limited) to acquire under a license an area of 9,000 ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 1
square feet in Hotel Oberoi Towers, Bombay (now renamed as Trident Nariman Point) for the purpose of using the same as a shopping centre. The tenure of the said leave and license was a period of 50 years at a fixed monthly license fee as agreed between the parties. After acquiring the said shopping space the assessee utilized it in granting different portions of the shopping space to various parties who were interested in setting up shops there with the condition that the shopkeepers had to subscribe to a specific number of shares of the assessee apart from payment of monthly charges (termed as contribution from shops). The Assessee also provided various services to the licensees like air-conditioning, telephone services, maintenance, electricity, water, sanitary, security etc. In consideration for the same The licensees were required to pay to the Assessee monthly consideration on the basis of the bill by the Assessee as determined by the Board of Directors from time to time. According to the Assessee, since the assessee is basically involved in the business of providing the shopping space on license along with various services, the consideration received from the said shopping space was shown as business income in the computation of income. According to the Assessee, since the assessee is not the owner of the building, the amount of license fees paid to EIH Limited was claimed as a deductible expenditure against the said business income.
In the assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 15.12.2008 for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim of the assessee and treated the above income as 'Income from house property' on the following grounds: a) That the assessee has an irrevocable right of 50 years over the shopping space. b) The Apex Court in the case of CIT - vs. - Poddar Cement Ltd.226 ITR 625 has held in context of section 22 that the owner is a person who is entitled .to receive income from the property in his own right. c) In view of the provisions of section 27(iiib) of the Act and findings of the Apex Court the assessee is the owner of the shopping space.
ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 2
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that income generated from shopping space is not 'Income from House Property’ as the assessee is neither an owner not a deemed owner. The Assessee pointed out that it acquired the property only under a license agreement and not under a lease. The Assessee pointed out that as per section 22 of the Act, any income is chargeable under the head 'Income from House Property' only on fulfilling the following conditions: a) Income should be derived from a property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto b) The assessee is the owner of the said property c) The property should not be used for the purpose of business or profession carried on by him, the profits of which are chargeable to income tax. The Assessee contended that it was not the legal owner of the property. With regard to applicability of the provisions of Sec.27(iiib) of the Act which deems under circumstances a person to be deemed owner of a property, the Assessee pointed out that as per the said provision, a person who acquires any right in or with respect to any building or part thereof by virtue of any transactions which is referred to in clause (f) of section 269UA, is deemed to be the owner of the building. The Assessee pointed out that under clause (f) of section 269UA of the Act, transfer in relation to any immovable property referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (d), means transfer of such property by way of sale or exchange or lease for a term of not less than twelve years, and includes allowing the possession of such property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation to the said clause provides as follows: “For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to .be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which such lease is to be granted and the further term or terms for which it can be so extended is not less than twelve years” The Asssessee contended that section 269UA(f) covers cases of transfer of property only under sale, exchange or lease, whereas in the instant case the shopping arcade has been acquired by the Assessee under a license and not lease. The Assessee ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 3
contended there was a difference in law between a ‘license’ and a ‘lease’. The Assessee contended that by entering into the lease agreement with EIH Limited what the assessee has received is only a right to use the said shopping space. The same would be evident from clause 7(i) of the agreement which provides that “the agreement does not create any interest or any other right in favour of the licensee in the said shopping centre or any part thereof but it is a mere license to use the said shopping centre given to the licensee". Since by entering into the license agreement a licensee does not acquire any interest in the immovable property or right to possess it, the appellant cannot be considered as deemed owner in terms of section 27(iiib) of the Act. The Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Cochin Tribunal in the case of M. Damodaran Nair -vS.- ITO (2004) 90 ITD 758 (Cochin) (SMC), in which the facts were that the assessee took a building on lease which was sub leased to others. The assessee derived rent from the building leased out which after deducting certain expenses was offered under the head business income. The contention of the assessee was that since he was not the owner of the building, the lease rent received was assessable as business income. The AO treated the assessee as deemed owner as per the provisions of section 27(iii)(b) read with Explanation to section 269UA(f) and computed income under the head 'Income from house property'. On appeal the Hon'ble Tribunal observed that the Finance Act 1987 had extended the meaning of the expression 'ownership" for the purpose of computing income under the head "Income from house property". The Tribunal observed the rationale of extending the said definition of ownership which was explained in the Board circular no. 495 dated 22.9.1987. The said circular provided that the expression ownership meaning legal ownership' had the effect of excluding cases where an assessee possessed all rights to an immovable property except the title. Having observed that the Hon'ble Tribunal held as follows: ‘That the whole thrust of Chapter XX-C consisting of sections 269UA to 269UD is to prevent evasion of tax. Clause (f) of section 269UA gives the extended meaning of transfer which makes it very clear that the lease for a term of not less than 12 years includes allowing the possession of such property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of property act 1882. Therefore mere occupation ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 4
of the property for a term of not less than 12 years does not make an assessee owner of the property.
According to section 27(iiib) the transaction should be the one referred to in section 269UA(f). Then only the person concerned will be the owner of the building or part thereof on the basis of extended meaning of transfer in section 269UA. The building or part of the building as referred to in section 27(iiib) should be a building or part of the building as referred to in section 269UA(f). Taking of the building by the assessee on leave and licence had no relevance in the instant case. There was no agreement for transfer, except giving the immovable property on rent by the real owner to the assessee, who in turn sub let it.
With the extended definition of the expression ownership transactions covered by section 269UA shall be considered as having the effect of transfer of title. In the instant case it was not a transfer or transaction as aforesaid and as such the extended meaning of ownership could not be applied.’
The Assessee contended that in the instant case, the assessee has taken the property on license with a condition and objective to sub license the same. There was no intention of transferring the property to the assessee by the said company and hence the question of applicability of section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all.
Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment company and the business of acquiring on license or by purchase, lease exchange of land and property and to sublease or sub license the said land and property building. It is the business of the assessee to acquire premises on license and to sub license the same in order to earn revenue. The Assessee relied on the Memorandum of Association which according to the Assessee, clearly provided the objects for which the company has been formed viz., To acquire on a license, premises suitable for housing and accommodating shops, boutiques, stores offices, show rooms for the purpose of making the same available on the basis of lease and license or sub license (and not for leasing or renting the same out) to any person, firm or company. The Assessee pointed out to the various clauses in the sub-license ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 5
agreement and contended that doing all those activities by the Assessee was nothing but a business activity in a systematic and organized manner. Thus, income derived from it is nothing but business income. In this regard the Assessee pointed out that the assessee along with the stipulated space also made provision for various services like a) Central air conditioning facilities, b) Central telephone operating service, c) Central piped music in the passages, d) Cleaning and- keeping of lobbies, entrance, common passages e) Maintenance of electricity, water, sanitary fittings and plumbing f) Watch and ward services, g) Providing advertising and sales promotional facilities by various means ~d media for goods available in the shopping area. Thus, in order to carry on the business of providing premises on license the assessee has made available the whole infrastructure of various facilities/services and for which the assessee charges certain amount. Thus, income earned from the above is nothing but business income.
The Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Universal Plast Ltd. -vs.- CIT (1999) 237 ITR 454 that the question as to whether the rental income received by the assessee would fall under the head Profit and gains of business has to be determined from the point of view of a businessman after considering facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs New India Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 208(Guj.) wherein it was held that whether an income falls under one head or another has to be decided according to the common notions of a practical and reasonable man after considering facts and circumstances involved in each case. It was contended that in the present case, the Assessing Officer did not give any cognizance to the fact that the intention of the assessee behind giving the property on sublicense was to exploit the property commercially in the ordinary course of business by providing various facilities and services and not merely to earn rental income. The
ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 6
Assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. -vs.- CIT ( 1972) 83 ITR 700(SC) wherein the facts were that the assessee was a private limited company. One of the objects specified in its Memorandum of Association was to take on lease or otherwise acquire and to hold improve, lease or otherwise dispose of land, houses and other real and personal property and to deal with the same commercially. Within less than two weeks of its incorporation the company took on lease a market place for a initial term of 50 years, undertaking to spend Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of remodeling and repairing the structure on the site. It was also given the right to sub let the different portions. The assessee developed the property and let out portions thereof as shops, stall and ground spaces to shopkeepers etc. The question was whether the assessee’s income from subletting was assessable as business income or as 'income from other sources'. It was held that, on the facts, the taking of property on lease and subletting portions thereof was part of the business and trading activity of the appellant and the income of the appellant fell under the head business income. Reference was also made to the following judicial pronouncements, wherein principles to be applied for treating income for letting out as to whether to be treated as income from house property or not have been laid down. • Karnani Properties Ltd. -vs;- CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC)(para 4.1)
• CIT -vs.- National Storage (P.) Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577 (Born.)
• Everest Hotels Limited -vs.- CIT (1978) 114 ITR 779 (Cal.)
The Assessee also submitted that an identical issue came up before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of Assessee's group concern, namely Oberoi Building & Investment Pvt Ltd for A.Y.2005-06 wherein the Hon'ble ITAT decided the issue in favour of the revenue by treating the contribution received from shop as Income from House Property. The Assessee pointed out that the said order does not have binding effect on the Assessee inasmuch as the operation of the said order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court on appeal filed by the Assessee.
ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 7
Without prejudice to the above contentions, the Assessee submitted that the assessee since its inception has been offering the above income as business income and the same has never been challenged by the revenue. It was argued that though the principle of res-judicata does not apply to Income tax matters it has been held in a number of cases including the apex court that the principle of consistency cannot be ignored. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgements: Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321(SC) CIT vs. A. K. J. Security Printers (2003) 264 ITR 276 H. A. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 618, 625 The Assessee prayed that the income in question be treated as business income.
The CIT(A) in the appeal for A.Y.2007-08, however, confirmed the order of AO by observing as follows :- 3.2 It is seen that an identical issue was involved in the appellant's group concern Oberoi Building and Investments Pvt. Ltd. in AY. 2005-06. In that case, under similar facts and circumstances, my predecessor had allowed relief. Revenue filed appeal against the said order. Vide its order dated 23.07.2010 in ITA No. 330/Ko1/2008. Hon'ble tribunal reversed the order of my predecessor and upheld the action of the assessing officer in treating income from shopping space as 'income from house property'. At the time of hearing it was informed by the appellant that the aforesaid order of ITAT has been disputed by the appellant before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court which have vide its order dated 4.10.10 stayed objection of order of Hon'ble tribunal. According to the appellant in view of the High Court's order, the tribunal order is no longer required to be followed. However, it is settled position of law that merely because an appeal has been filed before a higher court, which has granted stay, the order of lower court does not become invalid. As long as the higher court does not overrule and reverses the order of the lower court, the latter remains very much valid. Admittedly, the relevant facts in the appellant's case are practically identical to that in the case of Oberoi Building and Investment Pvt. Ltd. for AY.2005-06. Therefore, I am respectfully following the ratio given by Hon'ble tribunal in the case of Oberoi Building and Investment Pvt. Ltd. in AY.2005-06. The action of the assessing officer is therefore confirmed and grounds no. 1 to 5 are rejected.
The facts and circumstances are identical in AY 2006-07. In A.Y.2006-07 the CIT(A) following the order passed in A.Y.2007-08 upheld the order of AO. We may also mention that the facts are identical in A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08. The reasons given by the AO for treating the income from giving on license shops by the assessee as
ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 8
income from house property are also identical. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the order of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Oberoi Building and Investments Pvt. Ltd., based on which the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO, was the subject matter of appeal by the assessee before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee by an order dated 06.12.2010 granted unconditional stay of operation of the order of Tribunal. It was next submitted by him that the issue as to whether income from giving on license shops, where the main objects of a company giving shops on license was to acquire on a licence and grant space so acquired on sub-license, was to be assessed as “income from house property” or “Income from Business” has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs CIT 373 ITR 673(SC). It was further pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a very recent decision in Civil Appeal No.6437 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016 in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT again dealt with the question whether income derived by a private limited company from giving the property on rent where the main objects of the assessee was the business of giving on rent its properties as to whether the same has to be assessed under the head ‘Income from business” or “income from house property’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra) held as follows :- “9 . Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct position of law and looking at the facts of the case in question, the case on hand is squarely covered by the said judgment. 10. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing or the Revenue is to the effect that the rent should be the main source of income or the purpose for which the company is incorporated should be to earn income from rent, so as to make the rental income to be the income taxable under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or profession". It is an admitted fact in the instant case that the assessee company has only one business and that is of leasing its property and earning rent therefrom. Thus, even on the factual aspect, we do not find any substance in what has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 9
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee squarely covers the facts of the case involved in the appeals. The business of the company is to lease its property and to earn rent and therefore, the income so earned should be treated as its business income. 12. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) and looking at the facts of these appeals, in our opinion, the High court was not correct while deciding that the income of the assessee should be treated as Income from House Property. 13. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgments and allow these appeals with no order as to costs. We direct that the income of the assessee shall be subject to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession.”
Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sham Burlap Co. Ltd vs CIT 380 ITR 151 (Cal) wherein identical proposition was laid down. Our attention was also drawn to the various clauses in the leave and licence agreements and it was submitted that in the present case the amounts received by the assessee was for granting of sub-license and therefore coupled with the fact that the assessee’s main object was acquiring on license properties and giving them on sub-licence and deriving income therefrom, such income from sub-licensing has to be regarded as income under the head “income from business”. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A)/AO. 14. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. A perusal of the record shows that the assesse had entered into an agreement dated 16.04.1991 under which it got on a leave and licence basis 9000 sq.ft. of shopping area from M/s.The East India Hotels Ltd., in Out of this sq.ft in Hotel Oberoi Towers, Bombay Reclamation Estate, Mumbai, in an area ear marked as shopping area on payment of monthly licence fee computed at Rs.1.50 per month. The licence was not only for use of the shop area but also for use of facilities like air conditioners, use of elevators etc., Security service charges, sanitary services etc. The operative portion of the lease deed is as follows :- (The hotel company means “The East India Hotels Ltd.” And the Subsidiary means “The Assessee”) “The Hotel Company and Licensee in concurrence have agreed to give licence to the Subsidiary and the & subsidiary has agreed to take over the said area in the shopping
ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 10
centre from the Hotel Company and licensee on licence commencing on and from 15th April, 1991 and ending 'on 31st December, 2033. (2) The Subsidiary shall observe and perform the following terms and conditions and stipulations, namely :- (i) (a) To pay to the Hotel Company compensation for the said Licence at the rate of Rs.1.50 per month during the period of the Licence and pro-rata compensation for any broken period; to pay compensation for each month on or before the 10th day of the month following the month for which it is due and for any broken period at the end of such period. (b) To pay to the Hotel Company for making available air- conditioning facilities, an amount calculated at the rate of Rs.8.50 per month during the period of the Licence and pro-rata for any broken period, such payment to be made along with compensation under the preceding sub-clause (a). (c) To pay to the Hotel Company Rs. 10/- per Sq. ft. per month for Service Charges which include use of Elevators, Security Services, sanitary Services, common lighting and music and other related services. (ii) To reimburse to the Hotel Company actual out of pocket costs and expenses on a bill being submitted for telephone, and other services, and for maintenance, repairs and other outgoings. (iii) To pay or cause to be paid to the Hotel Company electricity charges and meter hire in respect of electricity consumed in the shops comprised in the Shopping Area on presentation of the bills thereof.”
In Clause-(xiv) it has been agreed between the parties as follows :-
“(xiv) It is clearly agreed and understood that the leave and licence hereby, granted shall be irrevocable for the period mentioned in clause 1 above, and even if the Subsidiary commits default in observance and Performance of any of the terms and conditions herein contained the Hotel Company shall not be entitled to revoke the Licence, but its remedy for any such breach on the part of the Subsidiary shall only be in damages. “
Clause-7 of the agreement provides as follows :-
“(7) IT IS HERE BY AAGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS : (i) This Agreement does not c r e a t e any interest or any other right in favour of the Subsidiary in the said Shopping Centre or any part thereof but it is mere licence to use the said Shopping Centre given to the Subsidiary. (ii) The Hotel Company shall throughout the period of the licence have full control over the said Shopping Centre and the Subsidiary shall have only ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 11
the licence to use it for the period and on the terms and conditions here in set out. (iii) The Hotel Company shall retain with itself the key/s of the main entrance/s' of the said Shopping Centre and deliver to the Subsidiary only the duplicate/s thereof. (v) The Subsidiary shall bear and pay all the costs, charges and expenses of and incidental to the preparation and execution of the licence in triplicate.”
In the light of the aforesaid clauses of the Agreement between the parties the question to be decided is as to whether the relationship between the parties could be said to be licensor or licensee or lessor or lessee. Except for clause (xiv) all other terms of the agreements between the parties clearly indicates that the relationship between the parties was that of the licensor or licencee. The test for determining whether a transaction is in the nature of ‘license’ or ‘lease’ has been laid down in judicial pronouncements. Before distinguishing the concept of lease and licence, first of all, let us see the definition of both these terms. Sec.105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines a lease as transfer of a right to enjoy an immovable property for a certain period, in consideration of price paid or promised to be paid in cash or kind. Sec.52 of The Indian Easements Act, 1882 defines Licence as a right to do or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would in the absence of such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property. Keeping in mind these definitions let us now go through the very important points which distinguish a lease from a licence: Lease is a transfer of interest, but licence is not. Generally Lease can be assigned, but a licence generally cannot be assigned. A lease being a proprietary right is a transferable interest. Licence the other hand cannot be transferred by virtue of it being a personal right. However, there exist certain exceptions such as movie tickets. A Lessee is required to have exclusive possession of the property for its proper enjoyment. But, a licence is created without transfer of possession. A Licensee is required to share the possession with the grantor (who is still the owner) and has not parted with the interest. In lease exclusive possession is obtained and hence lessee has exclusive control over the property. Normally in licence possession remains with the grantor. In Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC, the following ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 12
guidelines were laid down by the Supreme Court of India for the purpose of distinguishing between lease and licence. They are as following: 1. Whether a document creates a lease or a licence, the substance of instrument must be referred rather than the form. 2. The real test is the intention of the parties. 3. If a document creates an interest in the property, it is a lease. But if it only permits another to make use of the property on which legal possession continues with owner, it is a licence. 4. If under the document, transferee gets exclusive possession of the property he is prima facie a lessee. But circumstances may be established which negative the intention of parties to create a lease. Therefore, difference between exclusive possession and exclusive occupation cannot be disregarded. 16. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, especially in the light of clause-2 and 7 of the leave and license agreement, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that on the facts of the present case the assessee was only licencee of the premises owned by M/s. East India Hotels Ltd., and the parties intended it to be license and the agreement did not create an interest in the property owned by the licensor and that the licensee did not have exclusive possession of the property. As a licensee it had granted sub-licence to various parties and derived income there from. Once we come to the conclusion that the Assessee is only a licencee, then it can safely be said that the provisions of Sec.22 read with Sec.27(iiib) of the Act are not attracted and hence the income in question cannot be assessed under the head “Income from House Property”. 17. The assessee was not only deriving licence fee but also deriving service fee and other fees which were as follows :- COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EIH LIMITED DURING 2005-2006 Month LICENCE SERVICE AIR-COND TOTAL FEES(RS) FEES(RS.) FEES(RS) APRIL 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 MAY 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 JUNE 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 JULY 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 AUGUST 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 SEPTEMBER 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 OCTOBER 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 NOVEMBER 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 DECEMBER 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 13
JANUARY 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 FEBRUARY 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 MARCH 12,657.00 42,190.00 71,723.00 126,570.00 TOTAL 151,884.00 506,280.00 860.280.00 1,518,840.00
Similarly even for A.Y.2007-08, the consideration received by the Assessee as licensor from the sub-licensee, comprised of licence fees and service fee and air condition fees. Keeping in mind the objects of the assessee and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely concluded that the assessee carried on a systematic and regular activity in the nature of business and therefore the income from granting the premises on sub-license was to be assessed under the head income from business. The latest judicial pronouncement in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) was not available for consideration before the Tribunal when the Tribunal passed its order in the case of another group company based on which the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. With the change under law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the income in question has to be assessed under the head income from house property. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that the question whether the Assessee is a deemed owner u/s.22 read with Sec.27(iiib) of the Act, no longer assumes importance. For the reasons given above we allow the appeals of the assessee. 18. In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 02.09.2016.
Sd/- Sd/- [P.M.Jagtap] [ N.V.Vasudevan ] Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 02.09.2016.
[RG PS]
ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 14
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1.Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd., 4, Mangoe Lane, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700001. 2. A.C.I.T.- Circle-5, Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata 4. C.I.T.-II, Kolkata. 5.CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.