KPMG FLASH NEWS
KPMG in India
Rental income from letting of property is assessable as business
income, and not income from house property – Supreme Court
Background
Recently, the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court)
1
in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd
(the taxpayer) held that rental income received from
letting of property is assessable as ‘business income’,
and not ‘income from house property’ since the main
object of the taxpayer was to acquire and hold the
properties and to let out those properties.
Facts of the case
 The taxpayer Company having its main object
clause in the Memorandum of Association (MoA) as
being acquisition of properties and letting out of the
same.
 During the year under consideration, the taxpayer
had rented out some properties and the rental
income received there from was shown as business
income in the return of income.
 The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the income
received from letting of properties was in the nature
of rental income. Accordingly, it would be treated as
income from house property and not as business
income.
___________________
1
Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 2004) –
Taxsutra.com
© 2015 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
6 May 2015
 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
[CIT(A)] and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the
Tribunal) held that rental income received from
letting of property is to be treated as business
income. However, the High Court, relying on the
decision of East India Housing and Land
Development Trust Ltd. and Sultan Brothers (P)
2
Ltd. held that the income derived by letting out of
the properties would not be income from business
but could be assessed only as income from
house property.
Issue before the Supreme Court
 Whether the income derived by the taxpayer from
letting out property is to be treated as income
from business or it is to be treated as income
from house property?
Supreme Court’s ruling
 On a reference to the MoA of the taxpayer, it
indicates that the main object of the taxpayer was
to acquire and hold properties and to let out those
properties as well as make advances upon the
security of lands and buildings or other properties
or any interest therein.
 In the return of income, the entire income was
assessed as letting out of the aforesaid
properties. Thus, there is no other income of the
taxpayer except the income from letting out of
these properties.
______________
2
East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR
49 (SC) and Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC)
  In the case of East India Housing and Land
Development Trust Ltd. the Supreme Court held that
the income shall be treated as income from the
house property, and rested its decision in the context
of the main objective of the company and observed
that letting of the property was not the object of the
company at all. Therefore, the Supreme Court was
of the opinion that the character of income which
was from the house property had not altered since it
was received by the company, formed with the
object of developing and setting up properties.
 In the present case, letting of the properties is the
business of the taxpayer. Therefore, the taxpayer
correctly disclosed the income under the head
income from business and it cannot be treated as
income from house property. Accordingly, the
Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the
High Court.
Our comments


3 This is a welcome ruling of the Supreme Court where
In the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. the
Supreme Court observed that the deciding factor is
not the ownership of land or leases but the nature of
the activity of the taxpayer and the nature of the
operations in relation to them. It was highlighted that
the objects of the company must also be kept in view
to interpret the activities.
 The Supreme Court, while relying on various
decisions of other jurisdictions i.e. Privy Counsel,
House of Lords in England and U.S. Courts,
observed that where there is a letting out of
premises and collection of rents the assessment on
property basis may be correct but not so, where the
letting or sub-letting is a part of a trading operation.
In the case of a company with its professed objects
and the manner of its activities and the nature of its
dealings with its property, it is possible to say on
which side the operations fall and to what head the
income is to be assigned.
 Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the
present case, the Supreme Court held that income
had to be treated as income from business and not
as income from house property. Thus, the decision
in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd.
squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
it has been held that rental income received from
letting of property is assessable as business income,
and not income from house property. The Supreme
Court referred to the MoA of the taxpayer and
observed that as per the MoA, the main object of the
taxpayer was to acquire and hold the properties and
to let out those properties and therefore, the taxpayer
correctly disclosed the income under the head,
income from business.
The Supreme Court also dealt with the observation of
its earlier decision in the case of Sultan Brothers (P)
Ltd. with respect to reliance on the object clause in
the MoA as a determinative factor for characterisation
of income from letting of property. The Supreme
Court in the instant case observed that it was
conscious of the observations given in the Sultan
Brother’s (P) Ltd. case and the question of
classification of income as business income or
property income would depend upon the
circumstances of each case.

 No doubt in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd., the

Supreme Court had clarified that merely an entry in
the object clause showing a particular object would
not be the determinative factor to arrive at a
conclusion whether the income is to be treated as
business income. Therefore, such a question would
depend upon the circumstances of each case and
the Supreme Court is conscious of the aforesaid
4
dicta laid down by the Constitution Bench decision.

____________
3
Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC)
4
a formal statement

© 2015 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
 www.kpmg.com/in

Ahmedabad Delhi Mumbai

Commerce House V, 9th Floor, Building No.10, 8th Floor Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills
902 & 903, Near Vodafone House, DLF Cyber City, Phase II N. M. Joshi Marg
Corporate Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011
Prahlad Nagar, Tel: +91 124 307 4000 Tel: +91 22 3989 6000
Ahmedabad – 380 051 Fax: +91 124 254 9101 Fax: +91 22 3983 6000
Tel: +91 79 4040 2200
Fax: +91 79 4040 2244 Hyderabad Noida
8-2-618/2 6th Floor, Tower A
Bengaluru Reliance Humsafar, 4th Floor Advant Navis Business Park
Maruthi Info-Tech Centre Road No.11, Banjara Hills Plot No. 07, Sector 142
11-12/1, Inner Ring Road Hyderabad 500 034 Noida Express Way
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 071 Tel: +91 40 3046 5000 Noida 201 305
Tel: +91 80 3980 6000 Fax: +91 40 3046 5299 Tel: +91 0120 386 8000
Fax: +91 80 3980 6999 Fax: +91 0120 386 8999
Kochi
Chandigarh Syama Business Center Pune
SCO 22-23 (Ist Floor) 3rd Floor, NH By Pass Road, 703, Godrej Castlemaine
Sector 8C, Madhya Marg Vytilla, Kochi – 682019 Bund Garden
Chandigarh 160 009 Tel: +91 484 302 7000 Pune 411 001
Tel: +91 172 393 5777/781 Fax: +91 484 302 7001 Tel: +91 20 3050 4000
Fax: +91 172 393 5780 Fax: +91 20 3050 4010
Kolkata
Chennai Unit No. 603 – 604,
No.10, Mahatma Gandhi Road 6th Floor, Tower – 1,
Nungambakkam Godrej Waterside,
Chennai 600 034 Sector – V, Salt Lake,
Tel: +91 44 3914 5000 Kolkata 700 091
Fax: +91 44 3914 5999 Tel: +91 33 44034000
Fax: +91 33 44034199

© 2015 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.