2017 (11) TMI 635 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80-IAB - whether the action of the assessing officer in disallowing deduction u/s.80IAB for the forfeiture of the security deposit was in accordance with law? - Held that - By no stretch of imagination a short period of lease rental can be given any different treatment then the longer period of lease rental. We find that the Settlement Agreement was only a means of giving proper exit of the lessee under the premises of the lease agreement. Infact, the assessee has also received arrear lease rental under the Settlement Agreement which has been allowed by the authorities below as qualified for deduction u/s. 80IAB. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the Settlement Agreement is nothing but adjunct to the lease agreement which facilitated exit of assessee in term of lease. Hence, no different treatment can be given to this impugned amount received. Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee s contention is very appropriate that 9 month lease rental receipt by way of forfeiture of security deposit cannot be given any different treatment then the lease rental receipt which qualify for deduction u/s. 80IAB. Hence, the distinction brought upon by the Revenue authorities that this amount is not derived from the business of the assessee, is not sustainable. Lease rental for approx 9 months received by the assessee in the shape of forfeiture of security deposit as against the balance lease rental for the lock-in-period which was much larger, is certainly an income derived from the business of the assessee and the same relates to the source of first degree and, hence, the income from this source qualifies for deduction u/. 80IAB. - Decided in favour of assessee. Receipts eligible for deduction u/s. 80IAB - Held that - The ld. Counsel of the assessee conceded that the following receipts cannot be treated as business income, eligible for deduction u/s. 80IAB. i.e. interest on margin money deposit with State Bank of India, interest on security deposit with MIDC, interest on security deposit with MSEB, Pune and Recovery of damages from vendors. For rest of the receipt like Sale of scrap, Discount received on electricity charges and Cabling and other charges for cell phone towers we note that item have rightly been held by the ld. CIT(A) as not derived from the business of the assessee but may be attributable thereto. Hence, they don t quality for deduction u/s. 80IAB. We further note that the similar disallowance made earlier was accepted by the assessee. Hence, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned order by CIT(A).
2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IAB for forfeited security deposit.
3. Nature of Settlement Agreement and its impact on deduction under Section 80-IAB.
4. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IAB for interest on various deposits.
5. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IAB for other business receipts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Impugned Order by CIT(A):
The appellant challenged the legality of the CIT(A)'s order, claiming it was "illegal and bad in law." However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the primary focus was on the specific grounds of disallowance under Section 80-IAB.

2. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80-IAB for Forfeited Security Deposit:
The appellant argued that the forfeited security deposit from Satyam Computers Ltd. should be considered as rent for the lock-in period and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80-IAB. The CIT(A) and Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed, stating that the forfeiture was not in the nature of rent but rather compensation for premature termination of the lease, and thus not derived from the business of developing a SEZ.

The Tribunal analyzed the lease and settlement agreements, noting that the forfeited amount was essentially a settlement for nine months' rent, which should be treated similarly to lease rental income qualifying for deduction under Section 80-IAB. The Tribunal emphasized that substance prevails over form, and the forfeited security deposit, though labeled differently, was effectively rent.

3. Nature of Settlement Agreement and Its Impact on Deduction Under Section 80-IAB:
The CIT(A) and AO viewed the Settlement Agreement as a separate transaction unrelated to the lease agreement, thus disqualifying the forfeited amount from deduction under Section 80-IAB. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the Settlement Agreement was an adjunct to the lease agreement, facilitating the lessee's exit and involving arrears of rental income, which was allowed as a deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the forfeited security deposit should also qualify for deduction under Section 80-IAB.

4. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80-IAB for Interest on Various Deposits:
The assessee claimed deductions for interest on margin money deposit with the State Bank of India, security deposits with MIDC, and MSEB, arguing these were business-related expenses. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed these claims, referencing judicial precedents that such interest income does not have a direct nexus with the business of developing a SEZ and thus does not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IAB.

The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, agreeing that the interest income did not directly derive from the SEZ development business.

5. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80-IAB for Other Business Receipts:
The assessee also claimed deductions for receipts from the sale of scrap, discounts on electricity charges, cabling and other charges for cell phone towers, and recovery of damages from vendors. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed these claims, stating these receipts were incidental or ancillary profits and not directly derived from the business of developing a SEZ.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that these receipts, though arising in the ordinary course of business, were not directly derived from SEZ development and thus did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IAB. The Tribunal also noted the assessee had accepted similar disallowances in previous assessments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting the deduction under Section 80-IAB for the forfeited security deposit by recognizing it as equivalent to lease rental income. However, it upheld the disallowance of deductions for interest on various deposits and other business receipts, affirming they were not directly derived from the SEZ development business.

← Previous Next →