2012 (8) TMI 156 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of guest house expenses and depreciation on guest house - ITAT allowed it - Held that - As decided in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT 2005 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT that the intention of the legislature in introducing sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 37 is clear and was intended to exclude the expenses towards rents, repairs and also maintenance of premises/accommodation used for the purpose of any accommodation in the nature of guest house indicated in sub-section (4) of Section 37 - against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of guest house expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee.
2. Justifiability of the Tribunal's interference with the assessing authority's order regarding guest house expenditure.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allowability of Guest House Expenses and Depreciation
The main issue in the appeal was whether the expenses incurred by the assessee for maintaining residential accommodations at specific locations could be considered as expenditure towards payment of rent under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the apartments were kept ready for stay by touring officers due to accommodation difficulties in those cities. The first appellate authority allowed the claim based on a Bombay High Court decision. However, the Tribunal referred to a Calcutta High Court decision where a similar situation involving a bungalow was not treated as a guest house under Section 37(4) of the Act.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Interference with Assessing Authority's Order
The Tribunal's decision to interfere with the assessing authority's order regarding guest house expenditure was based on conflicting High Court judgments. The matter was eventually considered by the Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT, where it was clarified that the intention of the legislature in introducing sub-sections (3), (4), and (5) of Section 37 was to exclude expenses related to rents, repairs, and maintenance of premises used as guest houses. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Bombay High Court decision and favored the Calcutta High Court's interpretation.

Conclusion:
In line with the Supreme Court's ruling, the High Court answered both questions of law in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Consequently, the assessing officer's order was upheld, overturning the decisions of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appeal was allowed accordingly.