2015 (5) TMI 304 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation u/s 32 - ownership - building in question named Shubhalaxmi consists of 14 apartments which have been acquired by the two Directors of the assessee company in their individual names - whether arrangement entitles the assessee to be understood as an owner of the property qua the provisions of section 32(1)? - Held that - In the present case the formal deed of title of the property is not executed and registered in the name of assessee company. The moot question is as to whether assessee can be said to have acquired possession over the property in its own right and is using it for the purposes of business and is entitled to hold the property to the exclusion of all others. We say so for the reason that in the present case the assessee cannot be said to have acquired possession of the property in his own right or exercising such dominion over it as would enable others being excluded therefrom. Admittedly the only mechanism in terms of which assessee is using the property is the arrangement with the individual Directors which is supported by the resolutions of the Board of Directors. The individual Directors have acquired the property in their names and the transfer of the property into the account books of the assessee company is merely by way of a book entry supported by the resolution of the Board of Directors. Such arrangement ostensibly does not invest the assessee with the dominion over the property to the exclusion of all others. Therefore in the light of the legal position laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) and the fact-position in the present case in our view the lower authorities rightly held the assessee not entitled for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act with respect of the property in question. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of various expenses - repairs therefore in our view it would meet the ends of justice if it is to be understood that 50% of the expenses relating to repair maintenance electricity bills municipal taxes and water expenses incurred on property are relatable to the carrying on of the hospital business of the assessee. Thus we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow only 50% of the expenses on electricity bills repair 32, 74, 564/- in question is liable to be treated as a revenue expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee.
3. Ownership and depreciation claim on the property "Shubhalaxmi."
4. Allowability of expenses related to the property "Shubhalaxmi."
5. Deduction claimed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act.
6. Additional grounds of appeal in related assessment years.
7. Revenue's appeals regarding the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(iv).
8. Validity of assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.
9. Allowability of expenditure incurred for securing the right to practice at Jahangir Hospital.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment under Section 153C read with Section 143(3):
The assessee contended that the assessment made by invoking section 153C read with section 143(3) was bad in law due to the absence of incriminating documents. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment, referencing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd., which clarified that there is no requirement for documents found during the search to conclusively reflect undisclosed income. The CIT(A)'s decision was affirmed, dismissing the assessee's plea.

2. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed by the Assessee:
The assessee's claim for depreciation and other expenses related to the property "Shubhalaxmi" was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the property was purchased in the names of the individual directors and not the company, and thus the company could not claim depreciation. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow 50% of the expenses on electricity bills, repair & maintenance, municipal taxes, and water expenses, as they were partially used for business purposes.

3. Ownership and Depreciation Claim on the Property "Shubhalaxmi":
The Tribunal held that the ownership of the property did not vest with the assessee company as it was purchased by its directors in their individual names. The company could not claim depreciation on the property as it was not the rightful owner. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Mysore Minerals Ltd. to support its decision.

4. Allowability of Expenses Related to the Property "Shubhalaxmi":
The Tribunal allowed 50% of the expenses related to the property "Shubhalaxmi" as they were used for business purposes. The CIT(A)'s decision to disallow these expenses was partially overturned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the proportionate expenses.

5. Deduction Claimed under Section 35(1)(iv):
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(iv) for scientific research expenses. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer was not competent to decide whether the activity constituted scientific research without a decision from the prescribed authority. The Tribunal affirmed this view, referencing the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Mastek Ltd.

6. Additional Grounds of Appeal in Related Assessment Years:
The Tribunal applied its decision for assessment year 2003-04 to the related assessment years 2001-02 and 2004-05 to 2007-08, partially allowing the appeals of the assessee.

7. Revenue's Appeals Regarding the Disallowance of the Deduction Claimed under Section 35(1)(iv):
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(iv) for scientific research expenses.

8. Validity of Assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3):
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3), dismissing the assessee's plea that no incriminating evidence was found during the search. The Tribunal referenced the Mumbai Bench's decision in Scope (P) Ltd., which clarified that initiation of proceedings under section 153A is mandatory following a search.

9. Allowability of Expenditure Incurred for Securing the Right to Practice at Jahangir Hospital:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for revenue expenditure incurred for securing the right to practice at Jahangir Hospital. The expenditure was considered incurred for business purposes and was thus allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment partially allowed the appeals of the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, providing a detailed analysis of each issue based on legal precedents and the facts of the case. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of ownership and the purpose of expenses in determining their allowability under the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →