ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. YUSUF K HAMIED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5584/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2016AY 2011-122 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 noted that the issue was identical to those decided in previous assessment years where the AO's appeals were dismissed. Following the judicial precedent, the Tribunal held that the AO's grounds of appeal had no merit.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The assessee, Chairman and MD of Cipla Ltd., had declared income which was later increased by the AO. The AO's appeal was based on a similar issue that had arisen in earlier assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether the benefit derived by the assessee from residing in a company-owned property by paying a nominal rent constitutes a perquisite under Section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.5319/Mum/2012
ITA No.3770/Mum/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद� राजे� के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- Challenging the order dated 05.06.2014 of CIT(A)-36, Mumbai, the Assessing Officer (AO) has filed the present appeal.Assessee, an individual, is chairman and MD of Cipla Ltd. He filed his return of income 27.11.2011 declaring total income at Rs.9.79crores. The AO completed the assessment on 26.12.2013, u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.11.06crores. 2.During the course of hearing before us representatives of both the sides agreed that similar issue had arisen in the earlier AY.s and the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the AO.s for the AY.s 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 3.We find that the Tribunal had on 13.7.2015 (ITA6051/M/13 AY09-10) had decided the issue as under : “2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by the order dated 21/01/2015 in ITA No.5319/Mum/2012. This order has been further followed by the Tribunal in the appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-08 also in by the order dated 04/06/2015. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary as Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Cipla Ltd. The assessee is residing in a property owned by M/s Ciptal Ltd. by paying a rent of Rs..1,670. According to the AO, if the property would fetch a rent which is much higher than the rent paid by the assessee, therefore, the assessee derived benefit u/s 17(2) of the Act and accordingly, he calculated the perquisite at Rs..1,27,62,032/-. This has been deleted by the CIT(A) after detailed discussion and also on the ground that the similar issue has been decided by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Tribunal has also decided this issue after detailed discussion in Assessment Year 2009-10 confirming the order of the CIT(A). Following the same order, the Tribunal in AY 2008-09 has also decided the issue against the Revenue.

5584/M/14-Yusuf K.Hamied

More judgments on Section 17(2)

All 162 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →