TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In case of contract, parties to the agreement make law for themselves to which nothing can be added or deleted. When there was no intention of the parties to the lease agreement (supra) that rent is being paid for immovable and movable assets separately no amount of rent can be attributed to the furniture and fixture as claimed by the assessee. In case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. ( 1963 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ] held that when a building plant, machinery or furniture are inseparably let the Income Tax Act contemplates the rent from the building as a residuary head of the income and not one to be computed under section 9 of the old Act meaning thereby when immovable property and furniture and fixtures have been inseparably let ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) has erred in: i) Sustaining the assessed income at Rs.1,09,10,120/- as against returned income of Rs.77,13,686/-. ii) Disallowing depreciation of Rs.39,21,893/- on movable assets stating that the leave and license agreement dtd.25th June, 2014 did not provide any bifurcation of rent between immovable and movable property. The depreciation claim made on movable assets was u/s.57 of the Income Tax Act and comprised of furniture fixtures, computers, electrical fittings and office equipment. The appellant has netted off rentals of Rs.24,18,0307- in respect of furniture fixtures, computers, electrical fittings and office equipment against depreciation of Rs.39,21,839/-, thereby claiming a loss of Rs, 15,03,809/- under the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration, at the total income of Rs.77,13,686/-. The assessee s case was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny category. Assessee has made claim of Rs.39,21,839/- under section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). Declining the contentions raised by the assessee company that he is entitled for depreciation on the furniture and fixture amounting to Rs.39,21,839/- against the rental income of movable assets, Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to disallow the claim on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove on record that if he has given two separate items i.e. premises as well as movable properties on rent. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectively. The amount of Rs.39,21,839/- is allowable deduction on account of depreciation on furniture and fixture and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon ble Karntaka High Court in case of Mohan Kumar HUF 12 taxmann.com 361 (Kar), decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Dadarkar Associates 394 ITR 592 SC, Serendipity Apparels (P.) Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 154 (Ahmedabad Trib.) and Oriental Building Furnishing Co. Ltd. 79 Taxman 374 (Delhi) (Mag.). 8. However, on the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that when there is no clause in the lease agreement as to renting out the immovable and movable property separately the AO as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from the business. Before us, apart from relying upon the aforesaid clause in the partnership deed to show its objective, the learned counsel for the appellant has not produced or referred to any material. On the other hand, we find that ITAT had specifically adverted to this issue and recorded the findings on this aspect in the following manner: 26. On this issue facts available on record are that the assessee let out shops/stalls to various occupants on a monthly rent. The assessee collected charges for minor repairs, maintenance, water and electricity. As per the terms of allotment by the BMC, the assessee was bound to incur all these expenses. The assessee, in turn, collected extra money from the allottees. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
