TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermine the nature of the income . Accordingly, the appellant is eligible to claim standard deduction U/s 24 of the Act from the same and the disallowance so made is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of litigation fees paid to some law firms - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- CIT(A) following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 allowed the assessee’s claim as no expenses pertaining to personal litigation or other litigation of the directors were debited in the books of .account of the assessee. If directors were carrying any litigation in: their personal capacity, those expenses were separately debited in the personal account of the partners and not claimed by the assessee company. In the light of categorical finding of ld. CIT (A), in our opinion, it was for the revenue authorities to show from the detail of expenses 'that expenses disallowed related to criminal' proceedings against directors. or were otherwise 'inadmissible and were wrongly claimed by the assessee company.' This has . not been shown, Therefore, on facts and circumstances for the case, we are unable to interfere with the finding of the ld . CIT(A) that no inadmissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Less : Set off c.f unabsorbed Depreciation B/F/losses 1,95,28,540/- 12,28,66,440/- Income from other sources: Service charges receipt 2,64,72,720/- Total: 18,28,57,628/- Less: Deduction under chapter VIA 11,300/- Total assessed income 18,28,46,328/- R/O 18,28,46,330/- 2.1. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assesse s appeal. Being aggrieved, the department is in appeal before us and has taken following effective grounds of appeal 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the disallowance made by the AO at ₹ 79,41,516/- being 30% deduction for repair u/s 24 on rental income rece4ived by the assessee was service charges and not rental income. 2. On the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)'s attention to two agreements dated 29.10.97 With Mitsui Co: Ltd. for letting put its commercial center to that concern; One agreement was fur rent and the other was for services claimed to have been entered at the insistence of the tenant. The assessee also placed on record subsequent changes in the agreement between the tenant and the assessee. It was contended that the appellant never provided any services to the tenant nor claimed any deduction of any expens.es for such services; What was received from the tenant under the two agreements was rent for letting out of the premises. Even the tenant has deducted tax at source from the entire amount treating it as rent and not as services charges u/s 194(c). The 1d. CIT(A),after considering facts and circumstance of the case, treated the entire amount as rent and held that the assessee was entitled to full deduction towards repairs u/s 24 of the LT. Act. The Id. CIT(A) observed as under:- 1 have considered the facts and circumstances, the reasoning of the AO and the submission of the assessee. After considering the same 1 am. of the opinion that though two agreements had been made for sublicense fee i.e rent and serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re debited in the books of .account of the assessee. If . directors were carrying any litigation in: their personal capacity, those expenses were separately debited in the personal account of the partners and not claimed by the assessee company. In the light of categorical finding of ld. CIT (A), in our opinion, it was for the revenue authorities to show from the detail of expenses 'that expenses disallowed related to criminal' proceedings against directors. or were otherwise 'inadmissible and were wrongly claimed by the assessee company.' This has . not been shown, Therefore, on facts and circumstances for the case, we are unable to interfere with the finding of the ld . CIT(A) that no inadmissible expenditure was claimed by the appellant under the head 'litigation expenses'. Addition 'made was rightly deleted in all the three years. This ground of appeal is also rejected. 4.2. We have heard rival submissions. The order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question being in conformity with the orders of the ITAT for earlier years and there being no change in facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) on the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready discussed above. The said order has been confirmed by ITAT and disallowance of depreciation or of expenses claimed to be incurred on construction has not been sustained The assessee has placed all the relevant material on record to justify cost of construction. In the above circumstances, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance on depreciation in all the years before us. 5.2. We have heard rival submissions. The order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question being in conformity with the orders of the ITAT for earlier years and there being no change in facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Ground no. 4 is dismissed. 6. In the result, revenue s appeal is dismissed. ITA no. 4441/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11): 7. Effective grounds raised are as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 52,28,312/- being 30% deduction for repair u/s 24 on rental income . 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 21,28,750/- out of litigation fees pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
