TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,37,636 as income from house property instead of income from Other Sources. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, erred in allowing insurance premium of Rs. 1,81,851/- relating to the premises. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, erred in allowing the claim of the appellant for incurring an expenditure of Rs. 13,93,080/- under the head Business Advisory expenses. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, erred in allowing the claim of the appellant for payment of Director's Remuneration of Rs. 24,00,000/-." 3. The brief facts of the case as regards ground no.1 are that A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon these tenants the receipts are part and parcel of the rents which are being received by the assessee from these tenants. The agreements with all the three tenants are on record which dated 21st July, 2005, 10th April, 2007 and 17th June, 2005 respectively. It was stated that receipts from utility services are intimately connected with the property itself and part and parcel of the income derived by the assessee as rent from these tenants. It is only for the purpose of receiving rents that the assessee charges rent for space tenanted, for providing relevant utilities such as special widows, doors, flooring and other items as duly stated and noted in the agreement itself and which utilities cannot be separated from the tenanted spaces in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case. As per section 24(i)(ii) the amount of premium paid to insure the property against risk of damage or destruction is allowable in the impugned year as per Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the said insurance premium paid to insure the property is an allowable deduction. Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue that the said premium has not been paid to insure the property against risk of damage or destruction. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of assessee. Thus ground no.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 8. As regards ground no.3 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 13,93,080/- as business advisory expen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MLS) to be associated with the assessee for running a business centre operation from assessee's space. Copy of the agreement has been placed on record. During the year the assessee had declared income of Rs. 1,088/- from the said business centre. The assesee had the income from such business centre in the following years i.e. A.Yr.2010-11 at Rs. 89,49,658/- and during A.Yr. 2011-12 at Rs. 13,00,90,880/-. It has been shown as business income and not income from house property as there is no element of rent involved in these activities. Accordingly we are of the view that such expenditure paid for an advisory capacity is a revenue expenditure and is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has r....