Case: Nahalchand Laloochand (P.) Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai

The High Court observed that tenants from month to month or which are for a period not exceeding one year are excluded from the definition. However, it held that the assessee was a tenant for a long period and let out the premises to Bank of Baroda and, therefore, the income therefrom would be covered by Section 27(iiib) and not the exclusion clause.

Court's reasoning:
4. Neither the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal nor the order of the High Court indicate any consideration of the above aspects in respect of the house property named Kanti Lal House except observing that the assessee has been a tenant for a long period and that it had let out the premises. No definite finding of fact about thes of Section 269UA(f)(i) read with explanation as noted above has been recorded either by the Tribunal or by the High Court5. Having regard to the above flaw in consideration of the case, we are satisfied that the matter needs reconsideration by the Tribunal since the question involves determination of facts as indicated above. We, accordingly, deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.