9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e direct the AO to compute the income of the assessee under the head income from house property and income from other sources and complete the assessment after duly accepting the revised return of income and complete the assessment as per law. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We notice from the records that assessee has no dividend income, therefore when there is no exempt income, AO cannot invoke the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. See Cheminvest Ltd. [ 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Pr.CIT vs Ballarpur Industries Limited [ 2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 6678, 6679 & 6680 /Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2020 - S. Rifaur Rahman, AM And Shri Ravish Sood, JM For the Appellant : Mrs Arati Vissanji, AR For the Respondent : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): The present three (3) Appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai, in short Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.09.2017 for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 respectively. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed to the Ld. A.O as under:- (a) Recovery made towards common area maintenance charges of ₹ 1,74,70,284/- should be assessed to tax under the head income from other sources and not under the head income from house property. (b) Consequently, the Ld. A.O should grant deduction of expenses and depreciation allowance to the extent of ₹ 1,30,96,889/- and (c) Accordingly, the income under the head Income from other sources should be assessed at ₹ 43,73,395/- 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed to the Ld. AO to allow the expenses incurred for the purpose of appellants business as well as to maintain the corporate status and accordingly, ought to have directed to determine business loss at ₹ 2,51,990/- and the same should be set off against the appellants other sources of income in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 71 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental income. On similar lines, he also relied upon the various case law, which are as under:- i) Tarapore And Co. V/s. CIT (Madras High Court) (2002) 125 Taxman 446. ii) CIT V/s. Shankaranarayana Hotels (P) Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) (1992) 201ITR 138. iii) CIT V/s. Russell Properties (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) (1981) 137 ITR 473. vi) CIT V/s. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) (1986) 175 ITR 374. v) M/s. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. V/s. AOT (Bangalore ITAT C Bench) (2013) (ITA No. 720,721 685 of 2011) 6. Further, Ld. AR submitted that maintenance charges collected from the tenants are to be considered separately as income from other sources and the other running expenditure should be allowed as expenditure against the income earned by the assessee and if there is any expenditure which cannot be adjusted against the income earned by the assessee and the balance expenditure should be allowed to carry forward and set off from the following assessment year s income and if there is any expenditure which is unabsorbed in the earlier assessment year should be allowed to set off in the current assessment year. For that proposition, he relied upon the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected are part and parcel of the rental income and is the actual expenditure deductible against such receipts and whether it is relevant to the maintenance charges claimed by the assessee. If the proportion of the expenditure are in conformity with the maintenance charges collected from the licensee, then it cannot be considered as part of the rental income. We are in agreement with the AO that certain licensors are collecting the maintenance charges in order to take advantage. However, in the given case, neither assessee nor AO submitted any financial information for consideration. However, we notice that the claim of expenditure made by the assessee are considerable when compare to the maintenance charges collected from the licensee. Therefore, maintenance charges claimed by the assessee can only be treated as separate source of income and it can be charged as a separate head under income from other sources as claimed by the assessee and if there is any expenditure in connection with the above income, can only be allowed to be claimed by the assessee against the maintenance receipts. It is not relevant, how the assessee has declared previously over the years and what is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
