MONISHA R. JAISING,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7576/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2016AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding opportunity of being heard as not pressed. Other grounds were decided against the assessee based on admissions and prior judicial pronouncements.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the First Appellate Authority. Several grounds of appeal were raised concerning additions to income, treatment of property income, and disallowance of expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided a proper opportunity to be heard and the validity of additions/disallowances made by the lower authorities.

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 BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri A.K.Srivastava CIT-DR &
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Meena-DR
Hearing: 21/06/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11/09/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The first ground with respect to not providing fair, proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not pressed by Shri Yogesh Thar, ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed.

2.

So far as, ground number 2 with respect to addition of Rs.2,14,665/- made under the head “Income from House property”, the ld. DR, contended that this issue is covered against the assessee by Hon’ble Andhara Pradesh High Court in Vivek Jain vs ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP). This factual assertion of ld. DR was consented to be correct by the ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, this issue is also decided against the assessee.

3.

Ground no. 3 & 4 with respect to treating 8% of the cost of investment as annual value of the property on the basis of standard rent or municipal rateable value, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that this ground was never raised before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) or objected before the Assessing Officer. Considering the admission of the ld. counsel for the assessee, this ground does not survive, as admitted by the ld. AR, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

4.

So far as, ground no 5 & 6 with respect to disallowance of a sum of Rs.28,505/- out of vehicle/telephone expenses and adoption of rate of 10% was fairly admitted to be decided against the assessee by the Tribunal for Assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.201/Mum/2010. In view of this factual assertion, this ground of the assessee is also dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 21/06/2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →