DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NRB BEARING LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7008/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2020AY 2013-147 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision on ALV based on Municipal Rateable Value was correct, as it was covered by previous decisions. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowance for non-deduction of TDS, as the assessee had paid the TDS before filing the return.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the Annual Lettable Value (ALV) and the deletion of disallowance for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) directed ALV to be based on Municipal Rateable Value and deleted the disallowance, stating TDS was paid before filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether ALV should be determined based on Municipal Rateable Value, and whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable when TDS is paid before filing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(1),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, AR
Hearing: 22.07.2020Pronounced: 22.07.2020

आदेश / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]- 15, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 01.09.2017. The assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short DCIT) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated

2.

The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that Annual Lettable Value (ALV) should be based on Municipal Rateable Value without appreciating the fact that ALV has to be taken as per the deeming provision of section 23(1) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground: -

1.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the ALV should be basedon municipal rateable value without appreciating the fact that as per the deeming provision of section 23(1) of the Act, ALV is higher of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let out for year to year or actual rent received?

3.

Brief facts are that the assessee has leased Flat No.5 in Shangrila Building to Tata Sky Ltd. for a monthly rent of ₹ 1.25 lacs. This flat was, prior to leasing to Tata Sky Limited, leased to Deutsche Bank at a monthly rent of ₹3,12,500/-. The assessee received security deposit of ₹3.85 crores from Tata Sky limited and rent was fixed at a sum of ₹ 1.75 lacs. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment, assessed the monthly rent at the rate of 3,12,500/- and a difference of ₹16,50,000/- to the rent received declared by the assessee under the head income from house property. Aggrieved,

4.

Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. Departmental Representative both agreed that this issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decisions in assessee’s own case in and Ors. dated 31.07.2017 for Assessment Year 2008-09, 3770 & 3785/Mum/2014 and Ors. dated 15.03.2020 for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 & in ITA No. 3758/Mum/2016 and Ors. dated 16.09.2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12. We noted that the CIT(A) has considered this issue vide Para 3.3 as under: -

“3.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant. This is a recurring issue in appellant’s case. This issue was considered by ITAT for A.Y. 2007-08 in in para 9 of the order which is as under:

9.

After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orders we find that the AO as well as CIT(A) have drawn adverse inference for enhancing the ALV, mainly on the ground that, firstly, the assessee has taken interest free deposit from the

5.

As the issue is squarely covered, we find no infirmity in the direction of the CIT(A) and hence, this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

6.

The next issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground No.2: -

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of assessee in relation to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the

8.

Before us now, the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. Departmental Representative agreed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, as the assessee has already deducted TDS and paid to the Government exchequer before filing of return of income and this

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 →