TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 06.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief fact of this issue is that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 8,42,27,182/- for the assessment year 2010-11. The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15.03.2013 determining total income at Rs. 8,82,18,700/-. This income was later reduced to Rs. 4,53,07,588/- vide order passed u/s 251/154/143(3) of the Act dated 04.02.2015. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of interest in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. In respect of disallowance to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A)-XX had observed that the total remaining expenses debited in the profit and loss account to the tune of Rs. 40,73,576/- pertained to the expenses related to business income of the assessee and hence, they cannot be attributed as expenditure incurred from earning exempt income. Accordingly, the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was also deleted by the erstwhile Ld. CIT(A) in the original assessment proceedings framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order placed reliance on the said order of his predecessor and deleted the disallowance m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly, this Tribunal held that the other disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) was in order and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. We find that the aforesaid finding given would squarely apply to the instant appeal also as admittedly the revenue had agitated the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules in the sum of Rs. 49,31,531/-. Since, this issue had already been decided by this Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2216/Kol/2014 dated 16.08.2017 in assessee's case for the assessment year 2010-11 in original assessment proceedings, there is no need to adjudicate the same again in the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The next ground to be decided in this appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, the Ld. AO determined the gross rental income at Rs. 12 lacs, being the annual value determined based on Inspector's report (20,000 x 12x 5 shops = 12 lacs). From this gross rental income, the Ld. AO granted standard deduction @ 30% towards repairs and determined the net rental income of Rs. 8,40,000/- under the head income from house property and completed the reassessment. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that she is not the owner of the property and hence there could not be any charge of rental income of notional basis under the head income from house property on her. She also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT reported in [1971] 82 ITR 570; d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering that the assessee is not the owner of the shops and deleting the addition on rental income which is supported by Ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 12.06.2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 on the same issue and on the findings made by the AO on the basis of Departmental Inspector. Ld. CIT(A) has also erred by not considering the order dated 12.06.2015 on the same issue passed by his predecessor. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had given a categorical finding that the assessee is not the owner of these five shops hence, the provision of Section 22 of the Act can....