Judgment :- A. SUBBULAKSHMY, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the properties at No. 4, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras, and Balmal Apartments, Bombay, are business assets and no notional income from such properties should be estimated and assessed under the head 'Income from house property' ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation and other expenses relatable to the properties in question occupied by the directors as their residence, should be allowed as a deduction under the head 'Business' ?" Identical questions have been decided by this court in the case of CIT v. New India Maritime Agencies P. Ltd., wherein it has been held thus: "When a company gives its house as residence to its director, it is doing so only in the course of its business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only 'income from business'. Since, the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could not be assessed separately as income from house property and included in the assessee's total income, was correct." Following the said decision, we hold that the house properties involved are a part of the business assets of the assessee and the income derived therefrom cannot be assessed separately as "income from house property".We, therefore, answer these questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.