9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Once the assessee has claimed the standard deduction in relation to the leased property which includes furniture and fixtures, in our view, the assessee is not entitled to further depreciation on such leased asset. This issue is accordingly decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue Proportionate disallowance of expenditure relatable to leased property - Held that:- CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee had been maintaining separate account for the maintenance charges received from each of the building rented out and as well as the expenditure actually incurred on maintenance of these buildings. The assessee had maintained separate account for maintenance charges and other common expenses incurred, which means the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and in law, the L d. CIT(A) erred in deleting the proportionate disallowance of expenses of ₹ 39,38,460/- out of ₹ 2,19,36,152/- relatable to leased property claimed against business income, without apprec i at ing the fac t tha t the above expenses being attributable to both the activities, i.e. business as well as the leasing, are not wholly allowable against the business income of the assessee. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 4. The Appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-47, Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. Ground No.1: 3. Vide ground No.1, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore observed that the assessee had not charged any separate rent for furniture and fixtures. He accordingly allowed the depreciation claim on the furniture and fixtures installed in the leased units. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has come in appeal before us on this issue. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties. Admittedly, no separate lease rent deed has been executed from furniture and fixtures but the said furniture and fixtures are part of the leased units and have not been used for the business purpose of the assessee as the income derived from the said leased units has been offered by the assessee under the head Income from house property . The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the further disallowance made by the AO of ₹ 39,38,460/- by observing as under: 5.2 Ground 3: This is against the action of the AO in disallowing various common expenses on a pro rata basis (leased area to total area) as against the appellant identifying the specific expenses relating to the leased flats. From the details filed before me, I find that the appellant is maintaining expenditure details building wise and is able to identify the specific quantum of expense for the leased flats. The appellant is maintaining a separate account for the maintenance charges received from each of the buildings constructed and maintained by it, as well as the expenditure on the maintenance of these b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade is misconceived on facts. I therefore delete the addition of ₹ 39,38,460 made by the AO on this count. 8. A perusal of the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee had been maintaining separate account for the maintenance charges received from each of the building rented out and as well as the expenditure actually incurred on maintenance of these buildings. The assessee had maintained separate account for maintenance charges and other common expenses incurred, which means the assessee has segregated out the expenses incurred on maintenance out of the common expenses and the same were not debited to profit and loss account and under these circumstances there was no question of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
