Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

July 2009

S. 22 and S. 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Rent, being only a surrogate measure of annual value, has to be reduced by the expenses not connected with property but incurred by landlord for enjoyment of property by tenants, such as salary and bonus to sw

By C. N. Vaze, Shailesh Kamdar, Jagdish T. Punjabi, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 3 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

  1. (2009) 120 TTJ 1127 (Ahd.)

J. B. Patel & Co. (Co-owners) v. Dy. CIT

ITA No. 4033 (Ahd.) of 2004

A.Y. : 1993-94. Dated : 29-2-2008

S. 22 and S. 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Rent, being only a surrogate measure of annual value, has to be reduced by the expenses not connected with property but incurred by landlord for enjoyment of property by tenants, such as salary and bonus to sweeper, pumpman and liftman and electricity charges for pump motor and common passage.

For the relevant assessment year, the assessee computed rental income under ‘Income from House Property’ after claiming deductions in respect of the following expenses :

(a) Salary and bonus paid to sweepers/pumpman/liftman

(b) Electricity charges for pump motor and common passage.

Since these expenses were not covered by S. 23 and S. 24, the Assessing Officer denied the assessee’s claim. The disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, deciding in assessee’s favour, noted as under :

(1) The rent being charged by the assessee is only a surrogate measure of the said annual value. The expenditure on the aforesaid items, i.e. the salary (including bonus) to the maintenance staff of the facilities such as electric motors, lift, cleaning, etc., as well as that on the electricity consumed in respect of any common area and the electric motors, is not attributable directly to the house property as such, but to its enjoyment by the tenants/users thereof.

(2) In a given case it may happen that the said expenditure is incurred by the tenant or tenants (collectively), with the landlord having no locus standi or role therein. Who incurs the expenditure in the first instance is only a matter of mutual arrangement or convenience and thus, of no consequence where the bona fides of such expenditure are, as in the present case, not in doubt. The rent being charged by the assessee, which represents the measure of its annual value, would, in such a case stand correspondingly reduced.

(3) As such, although the assessee, being entitled only to the deductions in respect of the said expenditure in the computation of income under the said head of income only in terms of its provisions, would not be entitled to the impugned deductions, we consider that the annual value of its house property be assumed at the reduced value, i.e. after deducting the impugned amounts (from the rental), being only in relation to the expenditure required to be necessarily incurred for the enjoyment/user of the relevant property and, therefore, can only be considered as having been included at the said amount, i.e. at cost by the two parties in the determining of the rental.

(4) The standard deduction admissible to the assessee on account of repairs @ 1/6th of the annual value of its house property is in relation to the repairs, whether actually incurred or not, by the assessee during the relevant year. The impugned sums are not in relation to any repairs to the house property, but for the maintenance of the facilities enjoined therewith and necessary for its useful enjoyment.

You May Also Like