If the facts show that the assessee is doing a complex commercial activity by exploiting the immovable property, then the income would fall under the head 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. If on the other hand, the assessee has simply let out the space and is earning the rental income, it would fall under the head 'Income from house property'.
ITO v.Rasiklal & Co. Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 580/M/2006, August 28, 2008
Nutan Warehouseing Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2007) 106 TTJ (Pune) 137
The assessee had let out his godown. Other activities carried on by the assessee such as the provision of electricity and security etc. were found by the Tribunal to be only incidental to the main activity of letting out. The tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that no complex commercial activity was done by the assessee. Godown income has been held to be taxable under the head "Income from house property'.
ITO v. Tejmalbhai and Co. (2006 282 ITR (AT) 224 (Rajkot)
Services provided by the assessee were a commercial activity and hence the income from storage facilities provided by the assessee to customers was eligible to be considered under the head "Business income'.
Complex commercial activity, Example: Obligation to provide adequate security for the safety of the material stored apart from the responsibility of receiving and delivering stock, maintaining record of incoming and outgoing stock in the register, loading, unloading and stock taking of material etc.