assessee is in appeal on limited issue that learned CIT(A) had erred in concluding that income in nature of lease rentals from lease of information technology park as considered by AO should be charged to tax under head Income from house property . learned counsel pointed out that learned CIT(A) erred in not considering lease rentals of assessee in view of assessee being owner of land during year under consideration but had let out property was composite one with host of services and amenities was to be charged as income from business. learned counsel while reiterating submissions as were also made learned CIT(A) put forth brief facts as were considered by him. assessee is private limited company and assessed as such. It was incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 on 31st Aug., 2001. main object of assessee as per its memorandum of association is to establish and maintain information technology park with factories, commercial offices, residential complexes and other allied facilities and amenities such as gardens, swimming pools, internal roads, satellite communication facilities, shops, etc. on land to be allotted by any Government or to be purchased from any person. assessee was allotted land measuring 6.25 acres or 2,72,000 sq. ft. in Electronics City, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Bangalore by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. assessee developed said land and constructed information technology park thereon. information technology park consists of two large blocks of buildings with four floors in each block, service block, cafeteria, library, gymnasium, utilities for staff, restrooms, security, ATM and geodesic dome. Besides landscaping and construction of steel reinforced cement roads and high security compound wall fitted with motorized gate, huge water tank fitted with high pressure pumps, reservoir and sump, borewell, sewage treatment plant, lifts, rain water harvesting system, high standard electrical installation including transformer and generators, air-conditioning, fire fighting and smoke detector equipments, etc. have been provided/installed in said information technology park by assessee. assessee filed its return of income for impugned assessment year declaring loss of Rs. 25,30,697. During course of assessment proceedings, learned AO considered case of assessee by relying on decisions such as CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67: (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) and CIT vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. (2003) 183 CTR (Kar) 275: (2003) 262 ITR 517 (Kar) to hold that assessee is receiving rent from tenant as per lease deed drawn between assessee and absolute owner and therefore nature of income derived by assessee was undoubtedly rental income assessable under head Income from house property . He, further, considered loans obtained from Union Bank of India and security deposit from tenants in holding it as other than business of assessee to be considered income from house property. He submitted that assessee's main job on its incorporation was to establish and maintain information technology park with factories, commercial offices, residential complexes and other allied facilities and amenities such as gardens, swimming pools, internal roads, satellite communication facilities, shops, etc. by laying roads which become infrastructure facilities was also considered by various decisions such as Tribunal, Rajkot Bench decision in ITO vs. Tejmalbhai & Co. (2006) 100 TTJ (Rajkot) 898: (2006) 282 ITR 80 (Rajkot)(AT) that merely because income is attached to immovable property, it cannot be said sole factor for assessment of such income as income from house property. primary object of assessee while exploiting property has to be seen. Karnataka High Court in their decision in case of Sri Balaji Enterprises vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (Kar) 61: (1997) 225 ITR 471 (Kar) held that object of assessee firm was to obtain land either on leasehold or on freehold basis and set up commercial complexes and lease them out was considered as business activity. He has also relied on Tribunal, Bangalore Bench decision in case of Dy. CIT vs. Manmit Arcade (P) Ltd. (2005) 93 TTJ (Bang) 463 wherein it was held that entire activity of assessee is carried on in organised manner out of investment made by assessee as commercial venture. In support of his contention, learned counsel has filed paper book, lease deed and purchase deed from Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board which clearly indicate that said land was to be used only for purpose of software development facility which is business as has also been held in case of Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA Nos. 244 to 247/Bang/2007, ITO vs. Mahaveer Shopping Complex when they let out shops i n office complex of assessee concern amounting to business activity. In another decision of Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in case of PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. vs. ITO (2007) 112 TTJ (Kol) 523: (2007) 16 SOT 83 (Kol), it was held that income derived from shopping mall/business center is assessable as business income which facts and circumstances are equally applicable to facts of assessee's case. Distinguishing Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. case (supra), he pointed out that rent was received only as lease rent and no additional facilities or services were provided. He pointed out that land and infrastructure have been provided by assessee by obtaining loan from United Bank of India who had mortgaged immovable property by assessee along with personal guarantees of directors. On p. 20 of paper book as submitted he pointed out area clearly providing various amenities by assessee which fulfil assessee's contention was for earning business income from property and not as fixed rental income as in case of income from house property. He pointed out that learned CIT(A), therefore, misdirected himself to distinguish cited cases by solely directing himself to distinguish on fact whether assessee was owner of land in deciding issue that rental income received by owner of property will be taxed under head Property income . He submitted that in case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 8: (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) income derived by assessee from shops, was considered as income from property (sic) as was considered under s. 9 of 1922 IT Act. He vehemently argued that risk factor which is always intrigue in any business activity was lost sight of by learned CIT(A). It was not investment which did not involve risk insofar as all activity undertaken by assessee had been established as business activity; no portion was self- refrained by assessee. It was initially taken on lease and later acquired by assessee. Various amenities and services were provided in nature of maintenance of staff, monitoring of generator room, water supply, etc. All these are indications of commercial exploitation of property. This was also considered by apex Court in case reported in 51 ITR 253 (sic). Primary job of assessee, therefore, remained as was inscribed in its main objects as mentioned in memorandum and articles of association submitted in paper book. he also pointed out that s. 80-IA acknowledges in sub-s. (iv) of providing infrastructure facility as "business" for consideration therein. assessee developed, operated and maintained technology park could therefore be considered only for purpose of business activity and not otherwise. learned Departmental Representative relied upon finding of CIT(A) who in turn relied on decision of apex Court in case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra). We have considered rival contentions and perused material available on record. On our careful consideration of facts and circumstances, we are of considered view that assessee was incorporated with sole intention of developing technology park for which it obtained leasehold land from Karnataka Industrial Development Corporation and also obtained loan from Union Bank of India for constructing superstructure thereon which could not be considered as investment in property for earning rental income only. lease of property was shown as part of business activity, income received therefrom cannot be said as income received as land owner but as trader. In other words, if property is taken on lease thereafter developed on lease is part of business activity of assessee as owner, then income has to be treated as business income. activity was done by assessee as business venture and was in accordance with main object of company, intention of any prudent businessman is to earn profit at maximum level and investment made in business never lost its main intention for which it was incorporated. entire cost of construction was by way of obtaining loan which was risk as adventure in nature of trade. Therefore, conversion from leasehold to ownership led to pure commercial proposition resulting in business venture carried out by assessee company. assessee is providing ward and watch, maintenance of common area, maintenance of light in common area, supply of water, providing lift, installation of electric transformer, power to lessees, providing generator, overhead water tanks, transformer, power to lessees, providing generator, overhead water tanks, maintenance of drainage, etc., clearly establish that entire activity is in organized manner to earn profit out of investment made by assessee as commercial venture. case law cited by jurisdictional High Court in case of Sri Balaji Enterprises (supra) considered apex Court decision reported in 1972 CTR (SC) 8: (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) (supra). Therefore, case law relied upon by learned CIT(A) in CIT vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. learned counsel has distinguished on facts case of Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), insofar as assessee had become owner of land which was exploited with superstructure had obtained loan in providing facilities in accordance with parameters as defined by lessor namely Karnataka Industrial Development Corporation. We find force in submission of learned counsel that term business , as defined in provision of infrastructure facility as provided in sub-cl. (iv) of s. 80-IA clearly explains development and operation of technology park has not been controverted by authorities below. main intention was to exploit immovable property by way of commercial application which applies to assessee's case and would leave no room for doubting that intention of assessee was in providing software development facility in electronic city in industrial area within limits of Bangalore South District, Bangalore. Any activity undertaken with profit motive would amount to business and not mere return on investment when it is exploited. Tribunal decision was relied upon by apex Court decision rendered by Bench consisting of four Judges whereas decision of same Court in East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) was rendered by Bench of three Judges, will have binding force who further held that facts in similar to that of decision in case of Sri Balaji Enterprises (supra) in which decision Karnataka High Court held it as business income. We are therefore inclined to consider learned counsel contention that facts of assessee's case are similar to those of Sri Balaji Enterprises (supra) and also S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we direct AO to assess rental income as from business by setting aside order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. This being sole ground agitated before us is held in assessee's favour. In result, appeal is allowed. *** GLOBAL TECH PARK (P) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX