2011 (3) TMI 1823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... common business expenses treating the same as incurred for earning of rental income. The Ld. ACIT grossly erred in holding that common expenses are spent for earning rental income and arbitrary allocating of these expenses without any justification and disallowing of ₹ .5,67,787/- out of common business expenses. 2. The Ld. Appellant seriously erred in giving a working for allocation of common expenses wrongly stating that it has been given by the appellant. Vide letter dt. 12.12.2007. 3. The Ld. ACIT seriously erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case by treating Loss on derivatives as speculation loss ignoring the decision of Hon'ble ITAT (Bombay) given in the case of Dy. CIT v/s. SSKI investors Pvt. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hould be spread over all expenses proportionately. The common expenses which have nexus with the property works out to ₹ .5,30,843/-. The proportionate expenditure at 67.83% works out to ₹ .3,60,070/-. The disallowance of ₹ .5,67,787/- is, therefore, restricted to ₹ .3,60,070/-." 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee referred to page 1 of the computation and pointed out that assessee has already added back a sum of ₹ .6,43,056/- towards rates and taxes etc. Therefore, there was no further need of disallowance of expenditure. 6. On the other hand, learned DR supported the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). 7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and find that when inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d apply from 01.04.2006 and, therefore, the loss on account of futures and options was rightly to be treated as speculative loss. Following this decision, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). 13. Gr.No.3 After hearing both the parties we find that assessee had made a claim of ₹ .2,32,992/- paid as occupancy charges, and the same was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that since as per section 24 of the Act, only 30% of the annual value is to be allowed as deduction, no other deduction is allowable and accordingly, made disallowances of ₹ .2,32,992/-. 14. On appeal, the action of the AO was confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). 15. Before us the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that such deducti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has to be remembered that, earlier section 24 before its amendment by Finance Act, 2001 contained many other deductions which have now been restricted only tow types of deductions. It is further settled that while computing the income under a particular head deductions can be given only if the same are provided under that chapter. This become further clear from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. V. P. Gopinathan reported in 248 ITR 449 on this question it was held as under :- "The assessee had put moneys in fixed deposit with a bank and had earned interest of ₹ .1,17,444/-. On the security of the amount so deposited, the assessee took a loan from the bank and paid in respect of the loan interest of ₹....