2013 (12) TMI 832 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses and depreciation on guest House was allowable and the provisions of Section 37 (4) of the Act, were not attracted? - Held that - this issue is covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another 2005 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME Court , in which it was held that maintenance expenses not allowable in respect of Guest House. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law holding that deduction u/s 80-I was allowable on gross total income without reducing the deduction u/s 80-HH of the Act? - Held that - Decided against the revenue.

Issues involved:
1. Allowability of expenses and depreciation on a guest house under Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act on gross total income.
3. Claiming deductions under sections 80-HH and 80-I independently or on the reduced balance.
4. Treatment of interest income as business income instead of income from other sources.
5. Treatment of various capital expenses as revenue expenses.

Analysis:

1. Allowability of expenses and depreciation on a guest house under Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act:
The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Britannia Industries Ltd case, where it was held that maintenance expenses for a guest house are not allowable. The court interpreted the legislative intent to exclude expenses towards rents, repairs, and maintenance of premises/accommodations used for a guest house. The question was decided in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.

2. Deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act on gross total income:
The judgment cited a previous case where it was established that sections 80-HH and 80-I are independent of each other. The court clarified that a new industrial unit can claim deductions under both sections on gross total income independently, rather than reducing the deduction under one section from the other. This question was decided against the revenue and in favor of the respondent-assessee.

3. Claiming deductions under sections 80-HH and 80-I independently or on the reduced balance:
The court found that this issue did not arise for consideration based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Treatment of interest income as business income instead of income from other sources:
The judgment referred to a case where it was established that interest income arising from a loan advanced to a sister concern was not out of borrowed funds. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the availability of sufficient funds with the assessee company for the loan advanced to the sister concern.

5. Treatment of various capital expenses as revenue expenses:
This question was not specifically addressed in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Income Tax Appeal was disposed of with directions for the department to proceed accordingly based on the decisions made on the various issues raised in the case.

← Previous Next →