TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue, the Department has challenged the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), wherein, it was held that rateable value, determined the municipal authorities shall be the yardstick, which does not reflect the true ALV. 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Vijay Mehtra, claimed that the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal dated 17/04/2015 in the case of Shri Anand Jain vs DCIT (ITA No.2709/Mum/2013) and further in the cases of other family members for various Assessment years. The assessee also provided the copy of various orders from the Tribunal listed from page 1 to 71 of the paper book. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR, Shri Sachidanand Dubey. 2.1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 26/11/2014 for ready reference and analysis:- 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 municipal authorities shall be yard stick by following the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT 323 ITR 104. By doing so, he has ignored the decision in the following cases wherein it has been held that the an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties). Otherwise, assessee's computation in this regard worked out at Rs. 94,181/- ie., Galas rateable value is Rs. 5,880/- and other properties 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 various decisions including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny case, the percentage of investment in the impugned properties is no basis for arriving at the ALV of the properties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. During assessment proceedings, it was observed by the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee has declared net annual value of office premises no.311 at creative Industrial Centre and flats at Central Garden Complex, as per municipal rateable value at Rs. 8,48,545/- and the same were shown as vacant. The ld. Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act on the premise that the annual value of the property deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to be followed and once in a particular year, if any view i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160. Without going into much deliberation, we have already deliberated upon the issue in the foregoing paras of the order (in the appeal of the assessee), therefore, on the same reasoning, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed." 2.2. We find that in the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has made an elaborate discussion considering the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samita Ben N. Ambani vs C.W.T. (323 ITR 104)(Bom) and various other decisions which are as under:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ....