Depreciation on lifts allowed for maintenance business despite revenue's argument about section 24(a) standard deduction coverage

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding depreciation on lifts used in maintenance business. Revenue argued that maintenance services were linked to rental property and standard deduction under section 24(a) already covered maintenance expenses. ITAT held that maintenance income and rental income were separate business activities with distinct agreements. The assessee claimed standard deduction only on rental income, not maintenance income. No depreciation was claimed on the rental property itself. ITAT applied consistency principle, noting no disallowances were made in previous/subsequent assessment years for identical facts, citing CIT vs. Excel Industries. Appeal decided in favor of assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Maintenance Expenses
2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Fixed Assets

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Maintenance Expenses:
The assessee, a company engaged in real estate and maintenance services, filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 23,57,18,238/-. The assessment was completed with an income of Rs. 4,57,03,589/- after making additions and disallowances totaling Rs. 28,14,21,827/-. The CIT(A) provided relief on several additions but confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 7,22,62,040/- related to maintenance expenses. The assessee contended that these expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred for maintenance services, separate from rental income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had separate maintenance agreements with tenants and that these expenses were related to maintenance income, not rental income. The Tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted as the maintenance income and rental income were separate and identifiable activities. The appeal of the assessee on this ground was allowed.

2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Fixed Assets:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on fixed assets other than lifts. The Revenue argued that these assets were part of the building given on rent, and the assessee had already claimed a 30% deduction under Section 24. The Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed depreciation on assets used for maintenance and hire, which were offered to tax under "Business Income." The Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance of depreciation based on the ratio of maintenance income to total income was erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's activities of rental, maintenance, and hiring of assets were separate and identifiable. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the allowance as per the CIT(A)'s directions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of maintenance expenses and dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets. The Tribunal emphasized the separation of maintenance and rental activities and the consistency in the assessee's treatment of these expenses in previous years.

---