Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 419 2001 SLD 419 2001 PTD 2755 (1999) 239 ITR 916
Calcutta High Court
I.T.P. No. 103 of 1998, decision dated: 10-09-1998
AJOY NATH RAY AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, JJ
Deb for the Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

VS

. JYOTSNA RANI SAHA

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 22,56,256

Income-tax--Reference---Other sources---Property---Finding by Tribunal that income received by assessee was composite and did not wholly arise from house property---Part of income was from other sources---Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of expenditure on salary of night guard, electricity charges, etc.---No question of law arose---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.22, 56 & 256. Held, dismissing the application to direct reference, that the Tribunal had found that the income received by the assessee was composite and did not wholly arise from house property as part of it was on account of services rendered by the assessee. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deductions on account of salary of night guard, electricity charges, etc, relatable to income from other sources. No question of law arose from its order. CIT v. Kanak Investments (Pot.) Ltd. (1974) 95 ITR 419 (Cal.); CIT v. Sreelekha Banerjee (Smt.) (1989) 179 ITR 46 (Cal.) and Karnani. Properties Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC) ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: The question sought to be referred to us is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing deductions on account of salary paid to night guard, sweeper and caretaker and certain electricity charges from gross rent received in computing house property income when the same are not allowable as deduction either under section 23 or 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" Mr. Deb appearing for the Department explained that the deductions in regard to night guard, sweeper, caretaker and certain electricity charges could not be deducted if those were to be treated as deductions from income from house property. Mr. Deb has referred us to sections 23 and 24 of the Income-tax Act. He has also relied on certain dicta in the case of CIT v. Sreelekha Banerjee (Smt.) (1989) 179 ITR 46 (Cal.), whereby his submissions in' regard to caretaker's expenses are fortified. On behalf of the assessee it was pointed out that if the facts found by the Tribunal are taken as unassailable, as indeed those must be in any reference matter, the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492