4.1. The A.O. did not authorize the amount in question because of the forfeiture of the bond, which amounts to the same expenses. The expert excited the addition before the Ld. CIT (A) and focused on the following decisions: Before reaching the point of an expired deposit letter, he can help know what you can do to make sure you get your deposit back. Here are some tips that can help: If the risk of lawsuit was not enough, automatic deposit filing is a trap for the careless manager. The legally inexperienced manager or the lawyer inexperienced in the law of the renter/tenant may develop an automatic expiry clause that accidentally limits the trustee to the surety as the only sum of damages. « Pyoginam Vs. ACIT reported in 130 TTJ 7 (Del) the loss of serious money for non-compliance with the export rate in no penalty or investment, but is admitted in the nature of business losses as deduction. CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg.
Co. Ltd. Ors reported in 205 ITR 163 (SC) payment, although characterized as a penalty, but in fact in the exercise of the option made available by the legal system, as part of the evaluation of cases, is eligible business expenses. 4.2. Ld. CIT (A), taking into account the material to be registered, found that the deposit for the premises of Lucknow, Indoor and Delhi had been cancelled, as Assessee had failed to open the stores. The amount in question was treated as a loss of revenue and debited from the books of the noted. The Ld. CIT (A) instructed the A.O. to submit an investigation report into the evaluator`s statements, which was presented during the appeal phase. The A.O.
submitted in the investigation report that additional basic applications cannot be admitted. However, no comment was made on the evaluator`s comments. Ld. CIT (A) found that the facts clearly established that a surety had been paid for the rental of commercial premises for the notator`s activity. Thus, the serious deposit of money occurred during the expert`s activity and is therefore a case of loss of activity. Ld. CIT (A) relied on the Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Thackers H.P. – Co. Vs., CIT 134 ITR 21 (M.P.) and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in Pyoginam vs., Addl. CIT 130 TTJ (supra). Ld.
CIT (A) held, in light of the above, that « the bond was cancelled during the activity, so it is a loss of activity and is authorized by Section 37 (1) of the I.T. Act of 1961. » The addition was removed accordingly. After reading this article, I hope managers will see that the automatic deposit expires for breach of the lease is a risky method to collect a deposit. If the occupant`s injury results in damages that go beyond the surety, the manager should even waive the automatic forfeiture and apply the damage to the surety. If they are less than bail, then the manager should consider his statement to a judge for maintaining the money « undeserved », while the occupier`s lawyer smiles at his simple legal fees. Local laws govern what landlords can do with rental bonds, but notifications such as a forfeiture letter or a written message on an accessible route are often recommended by experts. This paper path can be useful if you challenge the owner`s decision to keep your deposit. In general, a landlord cannot keep part or all of the deposit to pay for normal wear or to upgrade the apartment for the next tenant. Even if you do everything you need to do, there is no guarantee that you will get your full deposit back.