9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 143 - AT - Income TaxBusiness Expenses or Expenditures deductible u/s 23 from rental income - business of builders, contractors & investment in immoveable properties for sale, lease, etc. - In the types business carried on by the assessee, it has to hold the properties to carry on its real estate business of buying and selling. However, till any good opportunity comes, it has given the said premises on lease to earn income. - claim of expenditure incurred on such premises - held that - annual value cannot be reduced by the amount of expenses because sec. 23(1) clearly talks of annual rent received and the expenditure can be claimed only u/s. 24. - only two types of deductions are possible, namely, 30% of the total annual value and amount of interest paid for acquisition of property. No other deduction is possible and accordingly we hold that the amount of expenditure incurred on account of brokerage, professional consultancy, maintenance, etc., relating to the property is not allowable under the head income from house property . - Decided against the assessee. Processing charges as Interest u/s 2(28A) - definition of interest - held that - processing charges have to be construed as part of interest in view of the definition of interest . - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of business expenditure claimed by the assessee. 2. Processing fee as an allowable deduction under Section 24. 3. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Business Expenditure Claimed by the Assessee: The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,19,55,318/- claimed as business expenditure. The assessee argued that the expenses were bona fide business expenditures and should be allowed under the head "Profits & gains of business or profession." Alternatively, if not allowed as business expenditure, the expenses should be reduced from the rent received while computing annual value under Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had leased out certain units in a building and reflected the income as "Lease Rent & Compensation" in the P&L account. The assessee treated the rent received as "income from house property" and claimed a loss under the head "business." The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the expenses on the grounds that such deductions are covered by the statutory allowance under Section 24 and cannot be claimed again as business expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the expenses claimed were covered by the 30% allowance from rateable value under Section 24. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), citing that only deductions specified under a particular head of income can be allowed. The Tribunal referenced multiple case laws, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in H.G. Gupta & Sons, which emphasized that deductions for "income from house property" are exhaustive and specified under Sections 23 and 24. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for additional deductions and dismissed the appeal. 2. Processing Fee as an Allowable Deduction Under Section 24: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a processing fee of Rs. 30,00,000/- as an allowable deduction under Section 24. The AO had disallowed the processing fee, arguing it could not be equated with interest expenses. The CIT(A) held that the definition of "interest" under Section 2(28A) includes any service fee or other charge in respect of moneys borrowed or debt incurred, thus encompassing processing fees. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s interpretation, confirming that processing charges are part of interest as per the inclusive definition provided in Section 2(28A). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. 3. Confirmation of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee appealed against the confirmation of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowances made by the AO out of expenses claimed. The assessee argued that the issue of allowability of such expenses was debatable, and no particulars of income were concealed or inaccurately furnished. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the question of allowability of certain expenses from house property was debatable at the relevant time, with some decisions favoring the assessee. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified as the issue was debatable and there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: - The assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of business expenditure was dismissed. - The Revenue's appeal against the allowance of processing fee as a deduction was dismissed. - The assessee's appeal against the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was allowed.
|
