2018 (12) TMI 314 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal disallows municipal tax deduction, aligns with precedents for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The ACIT-25 (2), Mumbai Versus M/s Camoron Finance & Investments

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, disallowing the deduction of municipal taxes against amenities charges and aligning with previous decisions for ... Deduction of expenses towards municipal taxes - to be deduced from “Income from Other Sources” u/s 57(iii) OR “Income from house Property” u/s 23 - Held that:- We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assesses own case for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y 2010-11 [2015 (6) TMI 757 - ITAT MUMBAI]. We find that in the aforementioned orders the Tribunal had observed that as payment of municipal taxes are directly related to letting out of the property, therefore, the same could not be allowed as a deduction under Sec. 57(iii) for the purpose of earning of amenities charges by the assessee. We thus finding ourselves as being in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the assesses own case for the aforementioned years viz. A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11, respectfully follow the same. - decided in favour of revenue. Issues:1. Allocation of municipal taxes against 'Income from Other Sources' instead of 'Income from House Property.'2. Treatment of municipal taxes deduction under Sec. 57(iii) and Sec. 23.3. Appeal against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09.Issue 1: Allocation of Municipal TaxesThe appeal filed by the revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow municipal taxes against 'Income from Other Sources' under Sec. 57(iii) instead of 'Income from House Property.' The revenue argued that municipal taxes directly relate to the house property's income and should be deducted from 'Income from House Property.'Issue 2: Treatment of Municipal Taxes DeductionThe Assessing Officer (A.O) observed that the assessee had rental income and amenities charges from leasing a property to HSBC. The A.O assessed rental income under 'Income from House Property' and amenities charges under 'Income from Other Sources.' The A.O rejected the composite nature of the agreements and treated them separately. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, allowing for municipal taxes deduction under Sec. 57(iii) for amenities charges.Issue 3: Appeal Against CIT(A) OrderThe revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that municipal taxes should be deducted from 'Income from House Property' as they are directly linked to rental income. The Authorized Representative for the assessee acknowledged previous rulings against the assessee and cited Tribunal decisions that disallowed municipal taxes deduction for amenities charges. The Tribunal agreed with the previous rulings and disallowed the deduction of municipal taxes against amenities charges, following precedents for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11.ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, citing previous decisions that disallowed municipal taxes deduction against amenities charges. The Tribunal found the issue to be covered by precedents and dismissed general grounds of appeal not pressed by the parties. The appeal of the revenue was allowed, aligning with the Tribunal's previous decisions for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.This detailed analysis covers the issues of allocation of municipal taxes, treatment of deductions, and the appeal against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2008-09.