CLASSIC MOTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 246/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 November 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance for repairs and maintenance of one premise to the AO for fresh consideration, based on a previous year's order. The disallowance for the other premise was confirmed as not pressed. The disallowance for depreciation was deleted, following a precedent from the previous year.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for repairs and maintenance of rented premises and depreciation. The AO disallowed these claims, stating that standard deduction for rental income was the only permissible deduction. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether repairs and maintenance expenses for rented premises are allowable beyond the standard deduction, and whether depreciation on certain assets is allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies sections related to deductions and disallowances for rental properties and depreciation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Mehta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.11.2016Pronounced: 16.11.2016

ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 6.11.2013 in relation to the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The first issue in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition on account of ‘Repairs and maintenance’ amounting to Rs.9,25,885/-.

The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee claimed deduction, inter alia, on account of ‘Repairs and maintenance’ amounting to Rs.1,99,985/- of the Premises A-39, Mohan Co-operative, Mathura Road, New Delhi and Rs.7,25,900/- of the Premises 5-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The AO made disallowance for these two amounts by noticing that the assessee was receiving rental income from them and there was no sanction for granting separate deduction for ‘Repairs and maintenance’ apart from standard deduction of 30%. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order on this issue.

3.

Having considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we find that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately succeeding assessment year 2010-11. A copy of such order dated 16.6.2016 in has been placed on record.

Relevant discussion on this issue has been made in para 4 of the order.

In this order, it has been discussed qua Premises at 5-Bhikaji Cama Place that the same was partly let out and partly used for the assessee’s registered office. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for considering the extent of let out and thereafter, making disallowance accordingly to that extent. Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order on this score and remit the question of disallowance of Rs.7,25,900/- in respect of Premises 5-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi to the AO for a fresh consideration. The ld. AR did not press the other disallowance of Rs.1,99,985/- towards the Premises A- 38, Mohan Co-operative, Mathura Road, New Delhi. To that extent, the addition is confirmed as not pressed.

4.

The only other issue in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,84,224/-. This issue is also, admittedly, similar to that considered and decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2010-11. Relevant discussion has been made in paras 7 and 8 of the order. After considering the relevant material, the Tribunal directed to delete this addition. As, admittedly, the facts and circumstances for the year under consideration are, mutatis mutandis, similar to those for the A.Y. 2010-11, respectfully following the precedent, we order for the deletion of addition of Rs.4,84,224/- made on account of depreciation.

5.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 16.11.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →