Tribunal  held that In the lease agreement between the parties, the demised premises had been mentioned as workstation in the building. Use of the building was incidental to the main object of leasing of workstation by the assessee. The assessee had given the ground and the first floor of the building on rent to another party separately and income therefrom had been offered by the assessee under the head “Income from house property” and this had not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the prime objective was exploitation of the asset in the form of workstation installed by the assessee and not the building or any part thereof. The use of easement and common areas by the second party was incidental to the lease of exploitation of workstation. The workstation in the form of plant and machinery were inseparable from the building and for exploitation or use of the workstation, the use of the building was incidental. The Order of CIT ( A) is affirmed . ( AY.2012-13)