2013 (9) TMI 635 - AT - Income Tax

Income from house property - Interest claim as deduction u/s 24(a) of the Income Tax Act Held that - Rental income from the individual flats owned by the assessee and her husband Shri Gurdas Mann have been included in their respective hands, the deduction on account of the interest paid on borrowed capital utilised for the purchase of the said flat is to be allowed in the equal proportion in the hands of the assessee and her husband Shri Gurdas Mann - The UTI bank in their certificate has clearly mentioned the name of the applicant to be Shri Gurdas Mann and name of co-applicant to be Smt. Manjit Mann. The total loan of Rs. 1.50 crores has been utilised for the purchase of the two flats - Claim of the assessee in relation to the interest paid on housing loan totalling Rs. 5,14,802 has been allowed Decided in favor of Assessee. Ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure made by assessee Held that - The assessee had booked the expenditure and the Assessing Officer had disallowed 3 per cent, resulting in addition of certain amount - The addition made by the Assessing Officer is ad hoc addition as the assessee had furnished partial vouchers and bills raised by parties, were not maintained - In the interest of justice and to plug the leakage of revenue, restricted the disallowance at one per cent of the total expenditure. Disallowance of expenditure under the head repair and maintenance Expenditure was incurred on replacement of electricity installation and also for the purchase of new furniture Held that - No merit in the claim of the assessee that it was a case of mere replacement and not the case of coming into existence of new fixed asset. The expenditure incurred on purchase of new furniture cannot be held to be replacement and the same being in the nature of capital expenditure, is not to be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee Further, assessee had failed to bring on record any evidence to establish its claim of having replaced the electric installation or the nature of the electric installation so replaced Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under section 24(b)
2. Disallowance of various expenses
3. Ad hoc disallowance of expenses
4. Disallowance of depreciation
5. Disallowance under section 40A(3)
6. Addition on account of non-accounting of receipts
7. Disallowance on account of foreign shows
8. Disallowance under section 14A
9. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii)
10. Disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses
11. Disallowance out of telephone and vehicle expenses

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Interest under Section 24(b):
The assessee claimed interest on a housing loan taken jointly with her husband. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest deduction, stating that the loan was in the husband's name. The Tribunal found that the loan was for two flats, one owned by the assessee and the other by her husband. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the interest deduction proportionately in the hands of the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Various Expenses:
The assessee claimed expenses related to film production and music albums. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, arguing they were not linked to the income from old films. The Tribunal found that certain expenses were necessary for business operations and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance, allowing legitimate business expenses.

3. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Expenses:
The Assessing Officer made an ad hoc disallowance of 3% of total expenses due to non-verifiable vouchers. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 1% of the total expenses, considering it sufficient to address revenue leakage concerns.

4. Disallowance of Depreciation:
The authorities disallowed depreciation on office premises, claiming it was not used for business purposes. The Tribunal found that the office was used during the year and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation claim.

5. Disallowance under Section 40A(3):
The assessee made cash payments exceeding the limit specified under section 40A(3). The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, as the assessee failed to provide evidence that payments were made under exceptional circumstances.

6. Addition on Account of Non-Accounting of Receipts:
The Assessing Officer added an amount as income, noting a discrepancy between the amount received and the amount reported. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reconciliation and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

7. Disallowance on Account of Foreign Shows:
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses related to foreign shows, citing discrepancies in dates. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, as the assessee failed to explain the nature and timing of the expenses.

8. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under section 14A, applying rule 8D. The Tribunal found no merit in the disallowance, as the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year.

9. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii):
The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on loans, arguing that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the loans and allow interest on loans raised for specific business purposes.

10. Disallowance of Repair and Maintenance Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed repair and maintenance expenses, categorizing them as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the expenses were for replacement and not for new assets.

11. Disallowance out of Telephone and Vehicle Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of telephone and vehicle expenses for personal use. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting the personal element in these expenses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute certain disallowances and allowing legitimate business expenses and depreciation claims. The Tribunal upheld disallowances where the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or where personal use was evident.