Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
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.