Dismissing the appeal the Court held that   the agreement dated June 24, 1998, showed that the arrangement was made or entered into more to adjust the outstanding liability of the assessee to KSBC. The clauses in the agreement referred to an owner of property transferring leasehold rights. The additional advantage or reduction in overheads was not the deciding factor for meriting a claim as business income. The crux of the matter is whether the object of the transaction, whether the assessee continues to do business or not, chances of revival, nature of asset in which third-party enjoyment right is created for consideration are relevant and essential. Looking at the circumstance stated by the assessee, it was clear that the assessee was doing the same business before the subject AY and continued to do the same business of manufacture of Indian made foreign liquor. The assessee had let several portions of available building on lease to different individuals and entities. Parting with possession of the godown, particularly in the circumstances of the case, was more as an owner of a business asset, but not for exploiting a commercial asset. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority, and the Tribunal had considered the case in the right perspective and disallowed the claim of rental income as business income. The Tribunal and the authorities had rendered available findings of fact on the assessee’s claim of rental income as business income and rejected the claim. No ground warranting interference was made out. Assessment as income from house property was justified. Referred Sultan brothers private ltd v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC).