2014 (11) TMI 1157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ember) This appeal filed by the Revenue 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 muni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- (3,94,508 + 1,61,57,124) jis not correct and same cannot be exceed Rs. 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ties is Rs. 88,301/-. AO relied on the Inspector's report of comparable cases 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 var....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities 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 decisi....