TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue on 30.3.2012 is against the order of the CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 9.1.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that rateable value as determined by the municipal authorities shall be yard stick by followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 94,181/- (5,880 + 88,301) i.e., ALV as determined by municipal corporation when in the present case there are evidences to suggest that the AO determined the ALV by taking comparable rent as per the inspector's report dated 23.12.2010." 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed the return showing the house property income on account of couple ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases in this regard. Aggrieved with the same, assessee is in appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) rejected the AO's method of computation of ALV of the said two properties and upheld the assessee's rateable value. For this, CIT(A) relied on various decisions including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties as well as the relevant material placed before us. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities, we find that the CIT (A) has rightly relied on the binding judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani (supra). There are many other decisions from the jurisdictional High Court in the similar lines, the copies of which ....