<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (4) TMI 876 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210094</link>
    <description>Annual letting value of let-out property must be computed by first determining fair rent under section 23(1)(a) on relevant evidence and then comparing it with actual rent under section 23(1)(b); notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot itself be treated as rent. The Assessing Officer had not independently carried out the fair-rent exercise, so the matter was remitted for fresh computation. On the licensing receipts, the assessee was treated as the owner for house-property purposes because ownership extends to a person entitled to receive the income in its own right, and the income could not be assessed as business income merely because formal title was disputed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 876 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210094</link>
      <description>Annual letting value of let-out property must be computed by first determining fair rent under section 23(1)(a) on relevant evidence and then comparing it with actual rent under section 23(1)(b); notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot itself be treated as rent. The Assessing Officer had not independently carried out the fair-rent exercise, so the matter was remitted for fresh computation. On the licensing receipts, the assessee was treated as the owner for house-property purposes because ownership extends to a person entitled to receive the income in its own right, and the income could not be assessed as business income merely because formal title was disputed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>