Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the AO's and CIT(A)'s addition of deemed rent for five Mumbai flats was unsustainable because the assessee had bona fide intention to let and took efforts to rent the properties, thus attracting s.23(1)(c) relief; Ground No.1 allowed. Ground No.2 was dismissed: the office at Hariom Chambers was properly held chargeable to tax under Income from House Property because the assessee did not carry on a business/profession chargeable to tax under profits and gains. Alternatively, Ground No.3 was allowed: the assessee may designate Hariom Chambers as self-occupied and treat Ruby Villa as deemed let, and the AO is directed to recompute income from house property accordingly.
The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the AO's and CIT(A)'s addition of deemed rent for five Mumbai flats was unsustainable because the assessee had bona fide intention to let and took efforts to rent the properties, thus attracting s.23(1)(c) relief; Ground No.1 allowed. Ground No.2 was dismissed: the office at Hariom Chambers was properly held chargeable to tax under Income from House Property because the assessee did not carry on a business/profession chargeable to tax under profits and gains. Alternatively, Ground No.3 was allowed: the assessee may designate Hariom Chambers as self-occupied and treat Ruby Villa as deemed let, and the AO is directed to recompute income from house property accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
