DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1689/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2022AY 2017-20189 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. It held that for vacant properties, the annual value should be determined based on municipal value, not fair rental value derived from other properties or intended to let.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO regarding the annual letting value (ALV) of let-out and vacant properties. The AO had used fair rental value for vacant properties, while the CIT(A) directed the use of municipal value.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct method for determining the annual letting value of vacant properties. This included whether fair rental value or municipal value should be adopted, and the relevance of the intention to let.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(1)(a),Section 23(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(13)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri Madhur Agrawal Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Hearing: 08.09.2022Pronounced: 20.09.2022

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 16.03.2022 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2 M/s. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co-Op. Soc., Limited

2.

Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - (1) "Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO, in respect of let out property holding that in the case of let ou

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 23(1)(a)

All 272 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →