RUCHI KHATTAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 429/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 March 2022AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of rental income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It also directed the Assessing Officer to decide afresh the disallowance of municipal tax litigation expenses, considering the income was declared under 'other sources'.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the determination of annual rental value for house property income and the disallowance of expenditure related to municipal tax litigation. The lower authorities had not considered the rental income in light of the rent agreement and municipal tax payments.

What were the issues?

Whether the rental income was correctly determined and if municipal tax litigation expenses were allowable as a deduction against income from 'other sources'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ SMC ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, Adv

O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2017-18 arise from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dt.24.08.2021 passed in the case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1035053123(1) involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA 429/Hyd/2021 2. I straightaway come to the assessee's twin substantive grounds regarding determination of assessee's annual rental value involving its income from house property as well as disallowance of expenditure pertaining to municipal tax litigation against her income from “other sources” involving very same; respectively. Both the learned representatives referred at the outset to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion on the foregoing twin issues as under :

3 ITA 429/Hyd/2021 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. There is hardly any dispute that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the assessee's rental income which is evident in its form 26AS in light of the corresponding rent agreement with its tenant as well as the municipal tax payment said to be allowable as a deduction under the very head. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant former issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing.

4.

Later issue of disallowance of municipal tax litigation expenses also follows the suit since both the learned lower authorities’ appear to have ignored the clinching fact that the assessee had declared its maintenance income under the residuary head of income from “other” sources than income from house property which would lead to 30% standard deduction allowable u/s.24(a) of the Act in later case. It is made clear that the assessee’s stand all along has been that the expenditure claim had been incurred wholly and exclusively incurred for deriving its income form other sources only. I therefore direct the Assessing Officer to decide the instant latter issue as well afresh in preceding terms. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2021.

More judgments on Section 24(a)

All 318 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →