<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (12) TMI 214 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60563</link>
    <description>Where service charges are separately assessed as business income, the related expenditure must be examined under the rules for business deductions, not disallowed merely because deduction under section 24 has been allowed on rental income. The assessee&#039;s tenancy agreements and returns showed rent and service charges were separately stipulated and separately realised, so the receipts were not composite rent. In the absence of material showing the expenses were fictitious, already allowed under house property income, or that the Assessing Officer&#039;s view was impermissible in law, revision under section 263 could not be sustained. The revisional order was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:42:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 214 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60563</link>
      <description>Where service charges are separately assessed as business income, the related expenditure must be examined under the rules for business deductions, not disallowed merely because deduction under section 24 has been allowed on rental income. The assessee&#039;s tenancy agreements and returns showed rent and service charges were separately stipulated and separately realised, so the receipts were not composite rent. In the absence of material showing the expenses were fictitious, already allowed under house property income, or that the Assessing Officer&#039;s view was impermissible in law, revision under section 263 could not be sustained. The revisional order was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>