Depreciation Allowed as Business Expense; Interest Deductible Despite No Property Sale; Reassessments Quashed Under Sections 153C & 158BD

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE Versus M/s. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD. AND VICA-VERSA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE Versus M/s. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD. AND VICA-VERSA - ... Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings and order under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allowability of depreciation on electrical installations, elevators, DG sets, etc.
3. Allowability of interest on borrowed capital as business expenditure.
4. Disallowance of interest not reflected in the balance sheet.
5. Allowability of construction management fee as a deduction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings and Order under Section 153C:
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation of proceedings and the consequent order passed under Section 153C were valid. The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was valid despite no satisfaction recorded that the documents found during the search were incriminating in nature and represented undisclosed income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee shared common business premises with the person searched, and the documents found did not lead to the disclosure of undisclosed income. The High Court concluded that the detection of incriminating material leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for the invocation of Section 153C. The absence of such material invalidates the proceedings under Section 153C.

2. Allowability of Depreciation on Electrical Installations, Elevators, DG Sets, etc.:
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for depreciation on electrical installations, elevators, DG sets, etc., installed in the building, which was let out, and the assessee was receiving rental income. The Tribunal noted that the agreement of lease indicated that rentals for the building and rent for the electrical installation were being separately charged, and the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of maintenance of amenities for which it received a separate fee. The High Court agreed with this finding, stating that the charges received towards provision and maintenance of facilities and services cannot be construed as income from house property but should be considered as income from business, thereby allowing the claim for depreciation.

3. Allowability of Interest on Borrowed Capital as Business Expenditure:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for interest on borrowed capital as business expenditure, noting that the assessee's business had commenced when it had purchased land, obtained plan sanction, and put up construction. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the sale of constructed properties is not a sine qua non for the commencement of business. The interest paid on borrowed capital cannot be added back to the work in progress once the business has commenced.

4. Disallowance of Interest Not Reflected in the Balance Sheet:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Appellate Commissioner's order directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of interest not reflected in the balance sheet. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished detailed workings of interest on borrowings for Tower 'A', which had been let out, and the interest pertaining to this was paid during the previous years. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's order.

5. Allowability of Construction Management Fee as a Deduction:
The Tribunal held that the income earned from construction management services should be assessed as business income and not as income from other sources. The Tribunal allowed 25% of the gross fee earned as expenses, noting that the assessee could not have received the income without incurring expenses. The High Court agreed with this assessment, stating that the Tribunal was right in construing the income as business income and not as income from other sources, and there was no perversity in the assessment of 25% being the expenditure incurred from the gross fee.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee to the extent that the assessment under Section 153C was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material leading to undisclosed income. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on the allowability of depreciation, interest on borrowed capital, and construction management fee as deductions. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.