TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had filed its return declaring income of Rs. 16,35,40,070/-. It was engaged in the business of hotel running and financial/portfolio management. During the year under consideration it had shown income from house property and business. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 18,28,46,328/- as under: Income from house property Rent received from commercial center 4,78,83,525/- Less: 30% deduction u/s 24(a) 1,43,65,057/- 3,35,18,468/- Assessed income under the head "Income from House property" Income from Business: Business income returned before set off B/F losses 13,10,30,537/- Add: Legal and professional charges 14,33,347/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given in the block assessment order." 3. Brief facts apropos ground nos. 1 & 2 are that assessee had credited in its P&L A/c sub-license fee and services charges of Rs. 7,43,56,245/-. The AO noticed that assessee had reduced its receipts from business income and declared it under the head "Income from house property". He observed that details were called for, as this issue came in preceding year also. He observed that assessee had entered into sub-license agreement dated 27-9-2008 with Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. for letting out its Metropolitan centre at Bangla Sahib Road, New Delhi. The assessee had also entered into a service agreement on the same day with Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. The bifurcation of the total receipts as per the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the tenant has deducted tax at source from the entire amount treating it as rent and not as services charges u/s 194(c). The 1d. CIT(A),after considering facts and circumstance of the case, treated the entire amount as rent and held that the assessee was entitled to full deduction towards repairs u/s 24 of the LT. Act. The Id. CIT(A) observed as under:- "1 have considered the facts and circumstances, the reasoning of the AO and the submission of the assessee. After considering the same 1 am. of the opinion that though two agreements had been made for sublicense fee i.e rent and service charges separately, yet the fact remains that no services of any kind were provided by the appellant to Mitsui Co. To compound the issue, the AO has als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e I.T. Act. He, accordingly, made an addition of Rs. 14,33,347/-. 4.1. Ld. CIT(A) following the Tribunal's order in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 (supra), allowed the assessee's claim by observing as under:. 17. The revenue has brought the issue hi appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, drew our attention to the detail of litigation expenses in all three years and contended that all the expenses were .incurred by ,the company in respect of litigation carried on by the company . against BLS Finance Ltd. in different courts. No expenses pertaining to personal litigation or .other litigation of the directors were debited in the books of .acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which were considered unexplained. This disallowance was made in subsequent assessment years by the AO. He withdrew the excessive depreciation as per calculation given in the chart enclosed as annexure 2 to the tune of Rs. 99,31,096/- and made the addition accordingly. 5.1. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A), following ITAT's order for earlier years, allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: "21. The revenue is aggrieved and has brought the issue in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. During the course of hearing, a copy of order of ITA T 'D' Bench, New Delhi in ITA No. 2481Dell04 and 3981DI04 in the case of DCIT. CC-JJ Vs Sunair Hotel Ltd (assessee company) dated 2611012007 was filed before us. The order was passed in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant material on record to justify cost of construction. In the above circumstances, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance on depreciation in all the years before us. 5.2. We have heard rival submissions. The order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question being in conformity with the orders of the ITAT for earlier years and there being no change in facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Ground no. 4 is dismissed. 6. In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed. ITA no. 4441/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11): 7. Effective grounds raised are as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition....