ITO 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHIR OMPRAKASH BAHL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 455/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 December 2017AY 2011-123 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision for the same assessee and a Bombay High Court judgment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s approach to determining the ALV.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held that the Assessing Officer's fair rent determination was not in accordance with Section 23(1)(a). The issue involved was regarding the determination of the annual letting value (ALV) of a property.

What were the issues?

Whether the fair rent determined by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the CIT(A) correctly applied previous judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(1)(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 “E” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramaniyam, AR
For Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR, Mr. M. Subramaniyam, AR
Hearing: 13/11/2017Pronounced: 29/12/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The ground raised by the revenue in this appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the fair rent determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Act.

3.

Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) was not right in applying the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moni Kumar Subha 333 ITR 38 (Del), even though the facts brought out on record suggests extraneous reasons for deflated rent which is in conformity with observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi AIR 1962 SC 151. The Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO.

4.

Per contra the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the order of the ITAT ‘E’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own case for the AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 1839/Mum/2013) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Shri Sudhir Behl decided on 22.08.2014. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the grounds of appeal

raised by the Revenue in the impugned assessment year were same as the grounds raised before the Tribunal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No. 1839/Mum/2013. The Tribunal held as under:

4. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the order of the authorities below and found that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2002-03 and the assessment year 2005-06 vide order dated 18.11.2011. As the facts and circumstances of the case are same, the CIT(A) had taken the monthly rent of Rs.28,000/- as taken by the Tribunal in the AY 2005-06 and thereafter increased it by 20% and thus computed ALV at Rs.33,6000/- per month. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5.

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 →