2023 (12) TMI 921 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds rental income as business income, grants partial relief on section 40(a)(ia), remands section 68 capital contribution matter

M/s. MM Creations Versus The ACIT, Circle 32 (1), Delhi

M/s. MM Creations Versus The ACIT, Circle 32 (1), Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of rental income under statutory deduction claimed u/s 24(a).2. Disallowance of Rs. 16,84,235/- under section 40(a)(ia).3. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses of Rs. 7,34,657/-.4. Addition of Rs. 67,45,000/- as unexplained capital contribution u/s 68.Summary:Issue 1: Classification of Rental IncomeThe appellant contested the CIT(A)'s decision to classify rental income as 'income from other sources' instead of under statutory deduction u/s 24(a). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing past decisions for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, where rental income was treated as 'income from business and profession' and depreciation was granted on the building. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with these findings and dismissed grounds 2 to 4.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia)The appellant challenged the disallowance of Rs. 16,84,235/- under section 40(a)(ia), arguing that the 'cost of sales' should not be covered by section 194C(6) & 194C(7) and that payments were reimbursements. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly observed the appellant's failure to fulfill obligations under section 194C(7). However, following the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of whether recipients included the receipts in their returns and paid taxes. The AO was directed to call for information under sections 133(6) or 131 if recipients were uncooperative. Ground 5 was allowed for statistical purposes.Issue 3: Disallowance of Foreign Travel ExpensesThe appellant argued that the foreign travel expenses of Rs. 7,34,657/- were for business purposes. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove business expediency, noting that the trip involved family members of the CEO and partner, suggesting a personal nature. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed ground 6.Issue 4: Addition under Section 68The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 67,45,000/- as unexplained capital contribution by a partner, arguing that the capital contribution was reflected in audited accounts. The Tribunal noted the absence of a confirmation from the contributing partner, Shri Dinesh Kumar Gaind, and remanded the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, allowing the appellant to provide necessary evidence. Ground 7 was allowed for statistical purposes.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes on grounds 5 and 7, while grounds 2, 3, and 6 were dismissed.