RARE ROSE PREMSIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to maintain the company's status and comply with statutory requirements are for the purpose of business and thus allowable as a deduction. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee company incurred ordinary expenses for running and maintenance. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether ordinary expenses incurred for running and maintenance of a company are allowable as a deduction under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-14, Mumbai dated 25.3.2015 pertaining to assessment years 2005-06, 2009-10 & 2011-12.
The only common ground in all these appeals is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ordinary expenses incurred for funning and maintenance of the company.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue in appeals has been decided by the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09 in dated 10.5.2013, the same may be followed.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has no serious objection.
We have perused the order of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 2008-09 and find that the Co-ordinate Bench decided this issue observing as under:
“5. As regards the issue raised in ground No. 2, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the expenses in question were incurred by the assessee to comply with the statutory requirements as the assessee is a Private Limited Company. He has contended that the expenses so incurred were very minimal to run any corporate body and as the same were incurred for the purpose of business, they are allowable as deduction under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. We find merit in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the fact that the business of the assessee company is that of letting out properties owned by it and the same was very much carried on in the year under consideration. No doubt, the income from letting out is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property” as per the specific provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, but the fact remains that the assessee was engaged in the business during the year under consideration in its capacity as Private Limited Company and the expenses incurred to maintain its status as a company and to comply with the statutory requirements were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the said business. We are therefore of the view that the expenses incurred by the assessee to maintain and run the corporate body are allowable as deduction under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” as claimed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, we delete the disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and allow ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal”.
Respectfully following the said order we hold that the ordinary expenses incurred by the assessee to maintain and run the assessee company are allowable as deduction under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” as claimed by the assessee. We allow the ground of the assessee on this issue.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026