https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384581 The Tribunal concluded that the property, used as the registered office, qualified as 'business income,' not 'house property.' Notional rent under section 23(1)(a) was deemed inapplicable. Adverse inferences by CIT(A) were overturned, citing incorrect property area and rental value. CIT(A) was found to have overreached jurisdiction in income enhancement. With the primary addition deleted, interest levy legitimacy was not addressed. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of all additions by the AO and CIT(A). en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Aug 2019 07:56:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384581 The Tribunal concluded that the property, used as the registered office, qualified as 'business income,' not 'house property.' Notional rent under section 23(1)(a) was deemed inapplicable. Adverse inferences by CIT(A) were overturned, citing incorrect property area and rental value. CIT(A) was found to have overreached jurisdiction in income enhancement. With the primary addition deleted, interest levy legitimacy was not addressed. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of all additions by the AO and CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384581