2015 (6) TMI 875 - AT - Income Tax

Income shown under the head utility income - Income from house property OR income from Other Sources - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - In the earlier years AO has accepted the factual aspects of the matter and had treated the utility income as part and parcel of the rentals and thus assessed as income from house property. In A.Yr. 2006-07 the assessee had received lease rent of ₹ 26,51,861/- and utility charges of ₹ 67,04,688/-. AO has accepted the aforesaid figures for determining the income from house property and after allowing necessary deductions u/s 22 of IT Act were allowed. Similarly in A.Yrs. 2007-08 and 2008-09 the assessee was having rental income and utility receipts which was declared as rental income and were accepted by AO and were assessed as income from house property. There is nothing on record that such utility receipts are not from the said tenants from whom the assessee derived rent. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly distinguished the decisions relied upon by the AO. The facts remaining the same over the past years as already mentioned herein above and there is no change and the doctrine of consistency has to be taken into consideration. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of insurance premium - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - As per section 24(i)(ii) the amount of premium paid to insure the property against risk of damage or destruction is allowable in the impugned year as per Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the said insurance premium paid to insure the property is an allowable deduction. Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue that the said premium has not been paid to insure the property against risk of damage or destruction. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of assessee. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of business advisory expenses - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - The assesee had the income from such business centre in the following years i.e. A.Yr.2010-11 at ₹ 89,49,658/- and during A.Yr. 2011-12 at ₹ 13,00,90,880/-. It has been shown as business income and not income from house property as there is no element of rent involved in these activities. Accordingly we are of the view that such expenditure paid for an advisory capacity is a revenue expenditure and is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of assessee. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of directors remuneration - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - The undisputed facts are that remunerations have been paid to two directors, the details of which are placed on record and the directors are whole time directors looking after the business of the assessee as well as for development work. The assessee as a result entered into an agreement for new business venture as observed herein above and therefore such an expenditure which has been consistently allowed by the department and there is no dispute to the fact that the doctrine of consistency is to be taken into consideration and the said expenditure is allowable in the impugned year as well. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of assessee. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of receipts as income from house property or income from other sources.
2. Allowance of insurance premium as a deduction.
3. Allowance of business advisory expenses.
4. Allowance of director's remuneration.

Classification of Receipts:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order classifying receipts as income from house property instead of other sources. The AO added the receipts as income from other sources, but the CIT(A) disagreed, stating the receipts were related to the property. The Tribunal found the receipts were part of the rent received from tenants for utility services, intimately connected with the property. Previous years' treatment supported this classification, and the doctrine of consistency was upheld. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Allowance of Insurance Premium:
The Revenue disputed the allowance of insurance premium as a deduction. The AO disallowed it, but the CIT(A) allowed the deduction. The Tribunal noted that as per the Income Tax Act, insurance premium paid to insure the property against damage is an allowable deduction. Since no evidence was presented to refute this, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Allowance of Business Advisory Expenses:
The Revenue contested the allowance of business advisory expenses. The AO disallowed the expenditure, but the CIT(A) allowed it, considering the expenditure related to establishing a business center. The Tribunal found the payment to be a revenue expenditure, allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Allowance of Director's Remuneration:
The Revenue challenged the allowance of director's remuneration. The AO disallowed it, but the CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on consistency and the directors' roles in the business. The Tribunal found the remuneration to be allowable, consistent with past treatment. Upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds.