1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Decision on Deduction Restrictions for Collection Charges, Emphasizes Apportionment</h1> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to restrict a firm's deduction for collection charges, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting exclusive ... Deductions – Assessee firm claim deduction of Rs. 71,703 as collection charges from “Income from House property” but AO restricted deduction to Rs. 30,000 only – Held That AO contention was correct and deduction allowed to Rs. 30,000 only Issues:1. Deduction for collection charges2. Misdirection in law by the TribunalIssue 1: Deduction for collection chargesThe case involved a firm deriving income from property and interest, claiming a deduction for collection charges of Rs. 71,703 against an annual letting value of Rs. 11,95,053. The firm employed 12 individuals for rent collection, with expenses also including legal costs and depreciation. The Assessing Officer restricted the deduction to Rs. 30,000, deeming the 12 employees unnecessary and expenses unjustified. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating the firm failed to provide evidence supporting minimal expenditure efforts. The Tribunal concurred, noting the employees' broader roles beyond rent collection, including repairs and maintenance. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer's allowance partly covered repair costs, thus finding the deduction reasonable. The firm argued for a 6% deduction based on gross rent received, citing case law. However, the Revenue contended that the employees supervised repair works and no exclusive rent collection evidence was provided. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of supporting documents for exclusive rent collection expenses and justifying the apportionment of charges between rent collection and repairs.Issue 2: Misdirection in law by the TribunalThe Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of misdirection in law, with the firm arguing for the full deduction based on a percentage of gross rent received. The Revenue countered that the employees had dual roles, including supervising repairs, and no conclusive evidence supported exclusive rent collection expenses. The High Court analyzed the evidence and upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for supporting documentation and the Tribunal's justified apportionment of expenses between rent collection and repairs. The court dismissed the firm's reliance on previous case law, noting the distinction in the nature of employee duties. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both questions of law, affirming the Tribunal's decision and denying the firm's claim for the full deduction of collection charges. No costs were awarded in the judgment.---
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
