BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE LTD.(NOW KNOWN AS BSE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- RG 2(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the AO for re-examination of the relationship between the expenditure and its disallowability under the head 'income from house property'. If the AO finds the expenses unrelated to property income, they should not be disallowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed rental income as business income and incurred expenditure on building repairs and maintenance. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure, and the CIT(A) confirmed this action.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire expenditure on building repairs and maintenance should be disallowed when a portion is claimed to be related to business activity and not house property income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 17.3.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Mumbai dated 22.12.2014 for the assessment year 2007-2008. In this appeal, assessee raised the solitary ground and the same reads as under:- “The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the entire expenditure of building, repairs and maintenance amounting to Rs. 1,93,99,502/- while calculating “the income from house property”. The Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that out of total expenditure of Rs. 1,93,99,502/- incurred by the appellant under the head “building repairs & maintenance” only Rs. 1,03,69,733/- were incurred in relation to the house property and balance amount of Rs. 90,29,769/- was for business activity. The business expense amounting to Rs. 90,29,769/- should have been allowed as a deduction and accordingly the AO may be directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 1,03,69,733/- and not Rs. 1,93,99,502/-.”
At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above ground and mentioned that the only issue to be adjudicated by the Tribunal relates to the addition of Rs. 90,29,767/-, which is the part of gross amount of Rs. 1,93,99,502/-. Bringing our attention to the facts of the case, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee earned „rental income‟ and the same was shown as „business income‟. The same is in tune with the objects of the company.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026