Held that according to the objects and memorandum of association of the assessees, HRP and CMDP, they were capable of being engaged in the business of land developing and were also builders, but the test was as to the actual business carried on by the assessees. According to the Department the buildings were handed over to the company in a finished mode and the company had also received advance for their buildings from the prospective purchasers, which the sale had not fructified by transfer of ownership since the full consideration had not been rescinded, that the assessees had therefore let the building out for rent and that the rental income was not a business income under section 28 but income from house property under section 22. The Assessing Officer had found the specific object from the memorandum of association, that the assessees had held the buildings as stock-in-trade for more than 20 years.  That though there were many objects in the memorandum of association, the Assessing Officer had found that the assessee HRP did not have any other business but lease of the properties and that no construction project had been carried out by it since its incorporation in the year 1975 nor it had made any sale since the financial year 2000-01. The presumption of the Assessing Officer that no prudent person would wait for more than 10 to 20 years even after payment of twice the cost of the building could not be countenanced. If the building had not been conveyed to the purchaser and had remained with the developer there was nothing wrong in the developer leasing out the premises. The absence of legal proceedings by the intending purchasers could have no impact on the tax levy of the assessee. The fact remained that the Assessing Officer had clearly found that but for the lease of properties the assessee was not engaged in any other business.  That irrespective of whether they were held as stock-in-trade or fixed assets, it was admitted by the assessee CMDP and accepted by the Assessing Officer, that the lease of buildings was the only business carried on by it and it had been receiving rental income from these buildings. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly held that the income was from business and not income from house property, especially since the assessees had only the business of renting out buildings in the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. The order of the Tribunal reversing his order and affirming the order of the Assessing Officer was therefore, set aside.  (AY.2002-03 to 2007-08)