2015 (6) TMI 560 - AT - Income Tax

Reduction of Brokerage from Rent Received for Determination of Actual Rent - whether the payment of brokerage can be deducted from the rental income while computing the taxable income under the head income from house property ? - Held that - Nature of expenses like brokerage, professional fee, etc., is held to be allowable, then numerous other expenses like salary or commission to an employee/agent who collects the rent can also be held to be allowable. This is not the mandate of the law. So far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel before us are mostly pertaining to maintenance charges paid to the society, wherein it has been held to be allowable as deduction u/s. 23 itself. There is distinction between maintenance charges and the brokerage paid because such a charge is given/paid for the very maintenance of the property so as to enjoy the property itself; whereas brokerage has nothing to do with the property or the rent which is given to a third party who has facilitated the landlord and the tenant on agreeable terms to rent the property. Therefore, these decisions will not apply in the assessee s case. Further in the cases where payment of stamp duty has been held to be allowable will not apply also as the same is directly related in connection with the lease agreement for renting of the property. Hence, said cases and instances will not apply in the present case. Thus, in our opinion, the payment of brokerage cannot be allowed as deduction either u/s. 23 or u/s. 24. The CIT(A) has therefore, rightly confirmed the disallowance of such a payment of brokerage and we hold that no such deduction can be allowed while computing the income from house property. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether brokerage paid for arrangement of lease can be reduced from rent received for determination of actual rent as per provisions of section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, a finance and leasing company, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order disallowing the deduction of brokerage paid for procuring a tenant from the rental income. The appellant argued that the brokerage amount should be deducted as it is directly related to earning rental income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim citing lack of specific provisions for such deductions. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating it contradicted the law. The main issue was whether the brokerage amount could be deducted from the rental income while computing taxable income from house property.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Income Tax Act. It clarified that the annual value of the property should be based on actual rent received or receivable by the owner from the tenant. The Tribunal emphasized that rent signifies a return for the usage of the property, and deductions are limited to specified expenses in sections 23 and 24. It distinguished between charges related to property enjoyment and expenses like brokerage. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision to highlight the non-allowability of brokerage as a deduction for computing income from house property.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that brokerage should be allowed as a deduction, stating it had no direct relation to property enjoyment. It differentiated brokerage from maintenance charges, emphasizing that the latter contributes to property maintenance for tenant enjoyment. The Tribunal concluded that allowing brokerage as a deduction would open doors for various other expenses, not mandated by law. It dismissed the appeal, affirming the disallowance of the brokerage deduction while computing income from house property.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of brokerage as a deduction from rental income, emphasizing the limited scope of allowable deductions under the Income Tax Act. The decision clarified the distinction between expenses related to property enjoyment and external expenses like brokerage, setting a precedent for similar cases.