“annual letting value”

Income HeadsSection 23Section 23238 judgments

The decision most relied on for annual letting value is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), cited in 381 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on annual letting value

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

373 ITR 673 · 2015 · Supreme Court

381

citing judgments

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.

354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court

208

citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

CIT v. Tip Top Typography

368 ITR 330 · 2014 · High Court

161

citing judgments

For computing income from house property, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) cannot be arbitrarily estimated by the Assessing Officer, but must be determined based on the Municipal ratable value of the property.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba

333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter

73 Taxmann 437 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

The annual letting value of a property can be determined at a figure lower than that returned by the assessee if the returned value is not in accordance with the principles for determining annual letting value under section 23. Assessees can contend for a value based on the correct application of law.

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT

323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

110 ITD 158 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

For the purpose of computing income from house property, the annual value under Section 23 must be determined even if the property is vacant or not actually let out, as the statutory phrase "property is let out" does not necessitate actual letting.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises

377 ITR 165 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

Judgments citing annual letting value

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. Dclt Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

travesty of justice. 10. We also bring to your honour's kind attention following errors in calculations and law in computing the annual letting value and also in computation of income from house property. a. The letting of the premises is subjected to the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gopuram Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenues dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43C

assessable under the head 'income from business' when they are sold and therefore the AO is not correct in bringing to tax notional annual letting value in respect of those unsold flats under the head 'income from house property'. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made under

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3143/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR

Section 220

holding that the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, are not applicable to this property. 5. The Appellant submits that the annual letting value in respect of Flat No.7B in building called “Manek” estimated by both the lower authorities at Mr. Bharat K. Sheth; A.Ys ... erroneous. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to adopt the annual letting value, as retried by the Appellant. 6. Without prejudice to the above, in any event, the adopting of the annual letting value at ₹24,00,000/- is highly excessive and arbitrary, and the same requires

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3142/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR

Section 220

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3141/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR

Section 220

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143Section 250Section 28Section 30Section 37

held that the AO has taken 15% of the investment while computing gross annual rateable value and directed the AO to compute Annual Letting Value in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 240 CTR (Del.) (FB) 97, wherein ... Municipal Authorities for previous years when compared to the impugned year then, the AO can ignore the Municipal valuation for determining annual letting value if there are other materials on record for determining ‘fair rent’. On this basis the learned CIT(A) has directed the AO to compute the annual

Jaydeep Realty, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1616/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 250Section 5

years, the properties P a g e | 7 JAYDEEP REALTY held as stock in trade would be taxable on the basis of notional annual letting value under section 23. From the above observations, it is evident that the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the said decision

DCIT Cent. Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Inorbit Malls (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2220/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Central Cir-4(2) M/S. Inorbit Malls P.Ltd Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Plot No.C-30,Bnlock-G, Air India Bldg, Nariman Opp Sidbi Bank, Bkc, Point Mumbai 400021 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaack9106G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Bare, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 153A

referred before the Hon‟ble High Court was as under; “Whether the assessee was liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of unsold flats owned by it under the head "income from house property"? 16 I.T.A. No. 2220/Mum/2021 M/s. Inorbit Malls Pvt. Ltd. 15.1 There the facts ... relevant to the issue raised relate to the addition on account of annual letting value (ALV) of flats, added on notional basis are that the assessee-company engages itself in the business of development of mini-townships, construction of house property, commercial and shop complexes etc. In the assessment completed

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 4285/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO vide his order passed u/s 250/143(3) of the Act dated 22.10.2018 had computed the annual letting value of Worli Property at Rs.2,43,255/- being 8.5% of Rs.28,61,827/-. After giving allowance for standard deduction

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

Shri Premkumar Menon, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 24

admitted the rent received pertaining to the ownership of these two floors under the head “income from house property” on the basis of annual letting value of the space. The assessee also declared maintenance charges from these premises as “income from other sources” and the details are given in assessment ... building or land appurtenant thereto, of which the assessee is the owner. The rent being charged by the assessee is the annual letting value. The expenditure on the items, i.e., the maintenance of 400KV power supply, nest control services for common areas, security services both physical security and electronic surveillance

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-23(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co-Op Soc. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1689/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 23(1)(a)

Officer and requested to set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. Grounds raised by the revenue are relating to determining the annual letting value of the property, at the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice that similar ground which revenue has raised before the Coordinate

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

from the annual value under section 23 or under section 24 of the Act. The AO further held that 30% deduction available from annual letting value covers all other expenses incurred for house property and therefore security charges, maintenance charges etc. are not allowed separately. Accordingly, the AO computed

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

Nitin Raj Marwah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Nitin Raj Marwah बिधम/ Dcit-8(2) 8Th Floor, Marwah Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Krishanlal Marwah Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm2959F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao Determining A Sum Of Uk Pounds 21,180 As The Annual Letting Value (Alv) Of A Residential House Property Owned By The Assessee In London, [United Kingdom (Uk)] & Making Addition Of The Same. 3. The Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.64,87,033/-. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Six (6) Residential House/Flats. According To The Ao, The Assessee Has Not Offered Any Income In Respect Of One Of These Properties As Deemed To Be Let Out Under The Head ‘Income From House Property’. The Ao Further Noted That The Assessee Is A Resident

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 23(1)

action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the action of AO determining a sum of UK Pounds 21,180 as the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of a Residential House Property owned by the assessee in London, [United Kingdom (UK)] and making addition of the same. 3. The brief facts