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

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

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