TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (9) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er page 26 of the Paper Book are as under :--- " The House property No. N-26,PanchsheelPark,New Delhiwas constructed in the year 1971-72. It was first let-out w.e.f. April 1972 to October 1972 to M/s. Industrial Cables (I) Limited @ Rs. 1,000 per month. The property was vacant during the period November 1972 to February 1973. The property was further let-out to Indian Metal and Ferrous Alloys Limited @ Rs. 3,000 per month for the period from March 1973 to March 1974.The property was vacant for the period from April 1974 to14-08-1974. The property was further let-out to The Embassy of Ireland @ Rs. 3,250 per month for the period from15-08-1974to15-07-1976. The property was vacant for the period from16-07-1976to9-09-1976. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and for which an amount of Rs. 4,000 could be received. The lessees had not even taken the equipments on hire from somebody. According to him, the additional amount of Rs. 4,000 was in respect of the following additional fixtures, equipments, namely, Inter-com system, guard house, cooling arrangement with coolers and flag pole. The other fittings and fixtures were normal part of the house. He, therefore, considering other relevant details, came to the conclusion that the firm had not provided the additional fixtures and fittings to the Singapore High Commissioner as it did not own the same nor it took the same on hire from outsiders and, therefore, it had to be presumed that the firm had performed no services by way of provision of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-82 in W.T.A. No. 474/Del. 1988 dated14th December, 1988, where for the purpose of valuation of the property the amount of income declared by the assessee was accepted. (ii) There were no new facts from those prevailing in earlier assessment years. (iii) Even if the additional fittings and fixtures were given by the lessee to Singapore High Commissioner and not shown in their books of account, how can there be an inclusion of income in assessee's own case? (iv) No extra amount was received by the assessee. (v) Even if the principle of res judicata is not applicable to the tax proceedings, yet, there has to be finality and earlier decision could not be revised so as to result injustice. (vi) The tax planning device and the principles r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Department was a finding of fact. Therefore, it is clear from this aspect that on fact the Tribunal had already taken a view that the assessee had not received or is not entitled to receive more than the amount stated by the assessee. In this year the controversy is whether an amount of Rs. 7,000 should be adopted or Rs. 12,000. Keeping aforesaid finding in mind let us consider the language of section 23 of the Act regarding annual value how to be determined. It states that for the purpose of determining the annual letting value of any property, it shall be deemed to be a sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. In this case such expected rent, on the basis of Supreme Court decisions as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... here that the presumption drawn by the Assessing Officer was only on the basis of the balance-sheet of the partnership firm but without calling for the explanation with regard to physical existence of the assets given on hire, ownership thereof and if existing, why they were not shown in the balance-sheet of the partnership firm. These findings should be enough to decide the controversy in favour of the assessee and, therefore, we need not go into the other contentions raised by the assessee stated hereinabove. This ground is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee. 9. The second ground raised is against rejection of the claim of loss of Rs. 80,000 on sale of shares. The assessee held 20,000 4% cumulative non-redeemable preference s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of both the sides were heard. It is not in dispute that the shares were actually transferred in the register of members of Raisina Agencies and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Besides M/s. Haryana Syndicate holds the beneficial interest in the shares so transferred. The amount received by the assessee is admittedly Rs. 1,20,000 but the loss is taken as not allowable only because the transaction is taken as smoke screen, We are not in a position to uphold the finding recorded by the tax authorities especially when the legal form of transaction is accepted and there is no evidence to hold that the transfer is not legally effected. The finding recorded about the device to avoid tax liability is given an inadequate material because it is not known what ....