NITIN RAJ MARWAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(20), MUMBAI

ITA 19/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2022AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that in subsequent years, the lower authorities had accepted the assessee's claim to treat the Bandra property as self-occupied and the London property as deemed let out. Therefore, for the current assessment year, the Tribunal directed the AO to treat the Bandra property as deemed let out and the London property as self-occupied.

What were the facts?

The assessee owned a property in London and did not offer any income from it, claiming it was self-occupied and below the taxable limit in the UK. The Assessing Officer treated it as deemed let out and made an addition to income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the London property should be treated as self-occupied or deemed let out, and whether the AO has jurisdiction over global income considering DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 23(1),Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma
Hearing: 25/05/2022Pronounced: 22/08/2022

Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM):

This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of Ld.CIT(A) under section 250 which pertains to assessment year 2013-14. 2. The solitary ground of appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeals Centre , Delhi (NFAC) has erred in determining a sum of GBP of 21.180/- as the ALV of a residential house property owned by the assessee in London, United Kingdom by ignoring the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee dated 23/02/2019 and by not considering the additional ground that the house property situated in London should be treated as self occupied and the house property situated at Bandra be treated as deemed let out.

2

3.

T

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)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →