Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

DCIT., Circle-7, Kolkata Versus M/s Mangalam Fashions Ltd.

2015 (6) TMI 875 - ITAT KOLKATA

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 determinin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 again .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. - ITA No. 1692/Kol/2012 - Dated:- 29-4-2015 - Mahavir Singh, JM And B. P. Jain, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P N Barnwal, JCIT For the Respondents : Shri Anil Kochar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ces of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, erred in allowing insurance premium of ₹ 1,81,851/- relating to the premises. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, erred in allowing the claim of the appellant for incurring an expenditure of ₹ 13,93,080/- under the head Business Advisory expenses. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, erred in allowing the claim of the appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d not income from house property'. 3.1. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance vide para 5.2.6 of his order by observing that AO has not brought on record any evidence or any sound reason to change the head of the income as has been derived by the assessee in the earlier years where the assessee has regularly been treated as income assessable under the head house property as the same is fully and totally related to the house property and accordingly held that such incomes are to be assessed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

received rents for utility services for providing upgradation amenities and utilities in the premises. As per bills on record raised upon these tenants the receipts are part and parcel of the rents which are being received by the assessee from these tenants. The agreements with all the three tenants are on record which dated 21st July, 2005, 10th April, 2007 and 17th June, 2005 respectively. It was stated that receipts from utility services are intimately connected with the property itself and p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

irmity in the order of ld. CIT(A)in para 5.2.6. who has rightly deleted the disallowance made by AO. Thus ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed. 6. As regards ground no.2 of the revenue AO has disallowed insurance premium paid by the assessee amounting to ₹ 1,81,851/-. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the same vide para 3.0. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As per section 24(i)(ii) the amount of premium paid to insure the property against risk of damage or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the revenue the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 13,93,080/- as business advisory expenses paid to Jones Lang Lassale Property Consultants (India)Pvt. Ltd. AO observed that this payment was made for management advice regarding business centre for the said property and accordingly held that this was not an allowable expenses and disallowed the same. 8.1. The ld. CIT(A) vide para 5.4.2. allowed the same by considering the explanations of the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontentions and perused the facts of the case. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the assessee had paid ₹ 13,93,080/- to Jones Lang Lassale Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. as management advisory payment. This is also not disputed. AO had observed in the order that the amount was spent for management advice regarding business centre which was let out. The assessee has claimed the said expenditure under the head "Business Advisory expenses". It was stated that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 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. Thus ground no.3 of the revenue is dismissed. 11. As r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version