Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs Cit on 21 January, 2003
It was submitted that in that case, there was one lease in respect of the building and another in respect of furniture; that in the assessee's case, the assessee had provided only the building on lease and no furniture or other amenities were provided; that in that case, from the agreement, it had appeared that the intention of the parties was clear, whereby the landlord had allowed the occupant to enjoy the table space on payment the comprehensive monthly rent, whereas in the assessee's case, the assessee had not provided any table space with comprehensive monthly rent; that in "Shambhu Investments" (supra), the building and furniture were accepted as inseparable, whereas in the assessee's case, only the lease of building was given and no furniture was provided; that therefore, it had been held in that case that the prime object of the assessee under the agreement was to let out the portion of the property to various occupants by giving them additional right of using the furniture and fixtures and other common facilities, for which, rent was being paid month by month, in addition to the security advance covering the entire cost of the immoveable property, whereas in the assessee's case, no security advance covering the entire cost of immovable property was recovered from the occupants; that in the assessee's case, no relationship of landlord and tenant existed, since the assessee was holding the property on lease rent basis only and the lease to CFCFIL was virtually a ' subletting of the property; that the assessee was not the owner of the property and it was holding the same on lease rent basis from Shri Bipindeep Singh, whereas in "Shambhu Investments P. Ltd.", the company was the owner of the property; that the assessee had provided an unfurnished accommodation to the occupant, whereas in Shambu Investments P. Ltd., the company had provided furnished accommodation to different occupants; that whereas in that case, the company had recovered the entire cost of construction from the different occupants, as interest free security, the assessee had not recovered any cost of construction from the occupant; that in that case, the company had let out the premises for a permanent period, whereas the assessee had let out the property only temporary, for a short period; that the assessee could not claim statutory deduction of household property, since it was not the owner of the property, while in "Shambhu Investments P. Ltd.", such was not the case; and that it could not be said that the assessee was not exploiting the property for its commercial business activity, which was its prime motto, whereas letting out the property was a consequential one. The assessee, in favour of its case, relied on numerous case laws, as discussed in the assessment order.