TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. A.Y. 2004-05: 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) at Rs. 18 lakhs. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an investment company registered as Non Finance Banking Company. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Steel Ltd. In the return filed, it showed `Income from house property' in respect of a flat it owned in Delhi which was rented out to M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. since 1989. The assessee was paid lease rent of Rs. 60,000/- p.m. in addition to an interest free security deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs. The assessee had shown rent at Rs. 60,000/- p.m. on the basis of which income from house property was determined. On being asked to substantiate the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the AO for attributing other incomes to the rental income. It is so for the reason that these have no relation with the determination of income from house property inasmuch as the amount of maintenance & other charges along with municipal taxes were borne by the tenant and not by the assessee. Further, the receipt of interest on deposit is an income independent of house property income. To contend that these items be considered as earnings attributable to the renting of the premises is not acceptable. However we find some force in the contention put forth that the notional rent on the amount of security deposit cannot be included in the ALV. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepted by the AO himself in the succeeding year. The further contention raised by the assessee that deduction should be allowed towards municipal taxes is not acceptable in view of the reason that such taxes were paid by the tenant and not the assessee. We, therefore, modify the impugned order to this extent. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for this year is partly allowed. A.Y. 2005-06: 7. The first issue in this appeal is similar to the one decided for assessment year 2004-05 being the determination of ALV. Interestingly, the AO adopted municipal value as ALV at Rs. 11,13,700/- for computing the income under the head "income from house property". No relief was allowed in the first appeal. 8. Having regard to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a surcharge for purposes of the Union calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge for purposes of the Union, to be called the "Educational Cess on income-tax", so as to fulfill the commitment of the Government to provide and finance universalized quality basic education, calculated at the rate of two per cent of such income-tax and surcharge". 11. From the above, it is clear that education cess is nothing but additional surcharge. Since such surcharge or education cess is part of tax, the same, in our considered opinion, cannot be allowed as deduction. Such amount clearly constitutes part of tax which falls within sec. 40(a)(ii). We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the AO restricted the disallowance u/s.14A to this level of Rs. 7,87,280/-. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to work out the disallowance u/s.14A in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). 16. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we are unable to find any reason for interfering with the impugned order on this issue because the ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to follow the mandate of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) on some reasonable basis. We uphold the impugned order but clarify that in no case the disallowance to be made b....