2021 (9) TMI 637 - AT - Income Tax

Expenses claimed u/s 57 - various expenses incurred by the assessee viz., PMS charges, professional fees salary is integral to the investment activity undertaken by him and to earn the income returned in the return of income for the previous year - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (7) TMI 1860 - ITAT BANGALORE claim of assessee for allowing deduction of expenses against income from other sources is not allowable because the assessee has not established that the expenses are allowable u/s. 57(iii) - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Double disallowance of expenses.
3. Alternative claim for deduction under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of expenses under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that various expenses incurred, such as PMS charges and professional fees, were integral to the investment activity and thus should be deductible under Section 57. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept this contention, leading to the disallowance of ?18,89,670 claimed under Section 57. The Tribunal referenced its previous decisions for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15, reiterating that under Section 57(iii), only expenses laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income under the head 'income from other sources' are allowable. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to furnish specific details to substantiate the claim that the expenses were incurred to earn income from other sources. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that no deduction is allowable under Section 57(iii).

2. Double disallowance of expenses:
The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have restricted the disallowance to the actually claimed amount of ?18,89,670 and not ?39,34,034, which included an already disallowed amount of ?20,44,364 under Section 14A. The Tribunal did not provide a separate detailed analysis on this issue but implicitly upheld the disallowance by referencing its consistent view in previous orders.

3. Alternative claim for deduction under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee alternatively argued that if the expenses were not allowable under Section 57, they should be considered under Section 48 as costs of acquisition or as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of securities. The Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that Section 48 allows deductions only for expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset or costs related to the acquisition or improvement of the asset. Since the expenses claimed did not fall under these categories, the Tribunal found no merit in the alternative claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 57, rejected the claim of double disallowance, and dismissed the alternative claim under Section 48. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in the open court on September 6, 2021.