DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal.

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio of 83:17 by observing that the apportionment of income based on area

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio of 83:17 by observing that the apportionment of income based on area

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio of 83:17 by observing that the apportionment of income based on area

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio of 83:17 by observing that the apportionment of income based on area

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

DEEP DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

43 & 44/Mds/2017 dated 19.04.2017 and considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: “4.4 The above extract from the Assessment Order establishes that - Although Section 46 of the Transfer of Property Act was not specifically referred, yet the issue involved was examined during the assessment proceedings and the A.R of the assessee

ROSHAN DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

43 & 44/Mds/2017 dated 19.04.2017 and considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: “4.4 The above extract from the Assessment Order establishes that - Although Section 46 of the Transfer of Property Act was not specifically referred, yet the issue involved was examined during the assessment proceedings and the A.R of the assessee

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-17(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

43,523 37,98,900 The assessee as well as A.O has not disputed the above facts. 4. The A.O relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. ACIT 389 ITR 38 (P&H) considered the maintenance charges as received by the assessee from the premise of rent agreement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 54F(1) as the assessee has carried out the construction of a residential building f a residential building, which includes the purchase of the purchase of land, and therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the assessee was entitled to the benefit of sec.54F for the above said amount

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 54F, amount which was kept in capital gain deposit account should be utilized for purchase or construction of the house property within two or three years respectively. Therefore, the Assessing Officer having allowed the deduction based on the deposit in the capital gain account, which was due for reinvestment in construction of house property on 22.11.2023 and re-opened

PARTHIBAN KALAVATHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

property measuring a total extent of 14805 Sq.ft., bearing Plot No. “C”, S. No.276, situated at Sasthiri Street as per Document (Annai Indira Nagar 1st Main Road as per Patta), Velachery, Chennai – 600 042 to a builder by entering into an agreement of sale dated 11.02.2013 by entrusting by way of GPA to sale 10832 Sq.ft. of land fully developed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.GIMPEX LIMITED , CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

section 43(5) but a business loss of the assessee. I therefore delete the disallowance of Rs.10,83,04,811/- made by the AO and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. Upon perusal of above observations of Ld. CIT(A), it could be seen that the assessee

M/S GIMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

section 43(5) but a business loss of the assessee. I therefore delete the disallowance of Rs.10,83,04,811/- made by the AO and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. Upon perusal of above observations of Ld. CIT(A), it could be seen that the assessee

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

property. Reference under Section 142A is incorrect when specific provision of Section 55A available 19. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the AO wrongly referred the matter to District Valuation Officer when Assesse has submitted Valuation Report by Approved Valuer. The AO ought to have recorded satisfaction under Sec.55A and in the present case there is no recording

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KALYANI CONSTRUTIONS (P) LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Kalyani Constructions Pvt. Income Tax, V. Ltd., Central Circle Ii(5), No.9, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 017. Pan : 1-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

43,011 sq.ft. The balance property was held as stock-in-trade. The assessee being a developer of the property, the Assessing Officer has determined the annual letting value of the area lying vacant which was held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. According to the Ld. D.R., the Tribunal found that when the property was held as stock