##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member &

Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member

ITA No. 1200/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 BSM Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT,

B-32, Lajpat Nagar-2, Circle-5(1), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AACCB3689F Assessee by : Sh. Arun Kishore, CA &

Sh. Suraj Suman, CA Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing: 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24.03.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arises

against the CIT(A)-33, New Delhi’s order dated 12.09.2018 in case No. 354/2017-18, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings disallowing it’s various expenditure items aggregating to Rs.22,41,977/- in assessment

2 ITA No. 1200/Del/2019 BSM Developers Pvt. Ltd.

order dated 23.12.2016 and upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower

appellate discussion reading as under:

“7. Decision

7.1 In the Assessment Order, Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee company has claimed loss of Rs.91 J 8,761.0 under the head ’Business & Profession*, which was requested to be reduced by Rs. L54A35/- on account of lease deed charges. The Assessing Officer also noted that the Assessee company has declared house property income to the tune of Rs.62,01,210/- (after claiming deduction) from three properties situated at different places. The Assessing Officer has distinguished the decision of the CTT(A) from the order for AY 201 Id2 in which it was held that the expenses claimed under the business head should be allowed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT (2007). The Assessing Officer has stated that the facts in the year under consideration arc different. Out of total income of Rs.91,54,878/-, Rs.84,60,315/- is the rental income. Other income includes maintenance charges, miscellaneous charges and sale from, building material. The Assessing Officer held that the Assessee has claimed the expenses not directly related to the business income. There was no business during the year as well as previous years. Hence, the Assessing Officer

has disallowed the following expenses:

1. Employee Expenses Rs.12,23,296/- 2. Establish Expenses Rs.10,18,681/-

3. Finance Charges Rs.2,50,000/-

7.2 The Appellant has, inter alia, submitted that out of the addition of Rs. 10,48,681/-, the addition of Rs. 1,70,765/- be deleted for the reason that it had already offered for the disallowance. These expenses include property tax at Rs. 1,59,193/- and insurance at Rs J. L572A. The Assessing Officer has computed the net assessable loss as per 1TR which is arrived at after taking into account suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,70,765/-. Thus the claim under the head ’Other Expenses' is Rs.8,97,916/-. The Assessing Officer has himself allowed expenses to the extent of Rs.50,0000. To this, the Appellant has submitted the copy of computation of income showing loss of Rs.31,60,975/-

3 ITA No. 1200/Del/2019 BSM Developers Pvt. Ltd.

and the computation of business income in which claim for the expense towards property tax and insurance

amounting to Rs. L70.765A have been added back.

7.3 I find that this contention of the Appellant is correct in as much as the addition of Rs. 1,70,765/- made in the computation of income wilt reduce the claim of expense under establishment expenses. Hence, the

addition of Rs. 1,70,765/- is deleted.

7.4 The Appellant has further submitted that it was in the business of investments in real estate for appreciation, sale, holding stock / inventory in addition to trading of building material. During the year under consideration, there was no real estate investment or sale due t