Tribunal allows appeals for assessment years, upholds depreciation disallowance, sets aside retired partners' payments as income diversion.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. The disallowance of depreciation on tenancy rights was upheld. However, the addition of payments to retired partners was set aside, recognized as a diversion of income by overriding title. The disallowance under section 14A was confirmed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of depreciation on tenancy rights.
2. Addition of payment to retired partner.
3. Disallowance under section 14A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Tenancy Rights:

The assessee claimed depreciation on tenancy rights, arguing that tenancy rights are intangible assets under section 2(11)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, referencing previous decisions against the assessee for earlier assessment years. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that tenancy rights do not fall within the block of intangible assets. The Tribunal, following its consistent decisions in the assessee's own cases for previous years, decided against the assessee, stating that the issue had been consistently decided in favor of the Department and none of the Tribunal's orders had been reversed or stayed on appeal.

2. Addition of Payment to Retired Partner:

For the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10, the assessee made significant payments to retired partners, which were disallowed by the AO. The AO argued that under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, only working partners are entitled to receive remuneration and interest, and payments to retired partners were not within the scope of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, stating that the payments were planned incentives and not examples of diversion of income by overriding title.

The Tribunal, however, found that the payments were contractual obligations as per the partnership deed and constituted a diversion of income by overriding title. The Tribunal noted that the payments were not gratuitous but were obligations created by the partnership deed, and the amounts were determined at the time of retirement. The Tribunal distinguished this case from other cases cited by the AO, such as "V.G. Bhuta" and "S.B. Billimoria & Co.," where the facts were different. The Tribunal concluded that the payments to retired partners were not includible in the income of the firm and allowed the assessee's claim.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A:

The AO made a disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses incurred to earn exempt income. The assessee argued that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income and that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, and the Tribunal also found no error in the AO's calculation and confirmed the disallowance, rejecting the assessee's grounds on this issue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. The disallowance of depreciation on tenancy rights was upheld, while the addition of payments to retired partners was set aside, recognizing it as a diversion of income by overriding title. The disallowance under section 14A was confirmed.

---