2012 (8) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the case is that the assessee is individual assessee. She has two immovable properties, one at Ahmedabad and one at Mumbai which are shown self as self occupied. The A.O. noticed that the assessee was occupying the property at Ahmedabad and has shown ALV of the property at Mumbai at Rs.9527/- which is very meager amount in compared to properties owned by the assessee. The A.O. had given reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard at the time of assessment proceeding. The assessee claimed before the A.O. that total municipal tax was paid Rs. 11,96,322/- and her share of the same worked out to Rs. 9,527/- which is 4.3% of the total taxes. The area of the property owned by the assessee is 313.33 sq.mtr. It was further contended by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terest on cost of house property @ 5% on capital value of Rs.4,19,86,220/- which was Rs.20,99,311/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs. 20,99,311/- in the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT (A). He has discussed thoroughly the facts of the case on page nos. 2 to 13 and relied upon the various case laws which are summarized as under:- i. Parkpaper Industries (P) Ltd. v ITO (2008) 25 SOT 406 (Mumbai) ii. Delite Enterprise (P) Ltd V ITO (2008) 22 SOT 245 (Mumbai) iii. Dr. V.S. Prayag v ITO (1983) 17 TTJ (Pune) 495 iv. ACIT v J.M.P. Investments Ltd. (2007) 15 Sot 180 (Mumbai) and the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal in paragraph nos. 6, 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3, which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rial with that used in municipal tax legislation, the Supreme Court in Sheila Kaushish v. C/T [(1981) 131 ITR 435 (Supreme Court) and Amolak Ram Khosla v. CIT [(1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC)], Balbir Singh (Dr.) v. MCD [(1985) 152 ITR 388 (SC)] and the other High Courts in several cases held that where property let out is governed by the Rent Control Acts, the standard rent as defined by or fixed under the relevant Rent Control legislation will have to be taken for determining the bona fide annual value. From these judgements, it is clear that in case of the property governed by the Rent Control Act, its annual value u/s.23(1)(a) cannot exceed the standard rent (fixed or determinable) under the Rent Control Act. These judgements were given for the....