BAGARIA MORE CO. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADIT,CPC,BANGALURU, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 481/KOL/2023Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 August 2023AY 2019-203 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have followed the previous decisions of the Tribunal which consistently allowed the claim for expenditure on amenities provided to tenants. The addition made by the lower authorities was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee suo moto disallowed Rs. 9973966 on account of cost of amenities provided to tenants. The CPC disallowed this amount again, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by considering it against income from house property.

What were the issues?

Whether the expenditure incurred on amenities provided to tenants can be allowed as a deduction against income from house property, and whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining a double addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)(a),Section 250,Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : August 02, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.03.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “For that on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), erred in sustaining the double addition of Rs.9973966, on account of cost of amenities provided to tenants of appellant’s house Assessment year: 2019-20 Bagaria More Co. Ltd property, made by ld. Assessing Officer, CPC u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) while computing income under the head ‘Profit and gains from business.”

3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act to submit that the assessee had suo moto made disallowance of Rs.9973966/- on account of cost of amenities to the tenants out of his business/professional income. However, the ld. CPC again disallowed the said amount and assessed the income from profit and gains from profession at Rs.47,86,959/- after setting off the losses of Rs.51,87,007/- making the total addition of Rs.9973966/-. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) however considered the said disallowance out of the income from house property and confirmed the addition. The ld. counsel has submitted that so far as the disallowance out of the income from house property was concerned, the issue relating to the allowances of expenditure incurred on amenities provided to the tenants has been settled by the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee from A.Y 1996-97 onwards. He, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2004 passed in for A.Y 1996-97 and further on the decision of the Tribunal dated 07.03.2008 passed in ITA Nos.1511 to 1514/Kol/2007 for A.Ys 1998-99 to 2001-02. He has further relied upon the decision of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2016 passed in ITA No.1738/Kol/2013 for A.Y 2009-10. In all the said decisions, the Tribunal has consistently allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred on amenities provided to the tenants duly considering the nature of services rendered to the tenants in the form of repair and maintenance of lift and other Assessment year: 2019-20 Bagaria More Co. Ltd

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →