2016 (12) TMI 1677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3(3) of the Act wherein income of the appellant was assessed at Rs. 16,89,734 as against Nil income declared by the appellant in return of income. 2. That the C'IT(A)/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing income from house properly at Rs. 16,89,734 with respect to office space owned by the appellant \\ithout appreciating that the same was used by the appellant for business purposes and therefore. not assessable to tax under head 'house property'. 3. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not restricting the value of above house property to 1/3rd of the total area, being the area given on lease by the appellant and excluding the remaining 2/3rd area inasmuch as the same was ut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....why the fair rental value of the property should not to be taken as deemed rental income from the property and added back to the income of the company. 3.1. The assessee as per its reply dated 18.03.2014 submitted that there was no rental income for the assessment year 2011-12 from the said property as 1/3rd of the total space of 5402 sq.ft was used by M/s Today Hotel Pvt.Ltd. and the balance of the space was used by the assessee company for its own business purposes. It was also submitted that the rateable value of the said property as assessed by the New Delhi Municipal Counsel in the last assessment order was Rs. 34,02,400/- on the basis of M/s I & E Advertising Private Limited. The said calculation was claimed to be not correct and i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a group company of the assessee wherein no rent had been paid by the tenant of the assessee apart from the payment of entire electricity and other payments. Considering the fact that no business activity was carried out by the assessee which finding was not assailed in appeal before the CIT(A), it was held that the entire premises was used by the tenant. Since the submissions made in the assessment proceedings were re-iterated the CIT(A) held that there was no infirmity pointed out in the assessment order. The addition made was sustained. 3.3. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances, it is seen that the Assessing Officer in 2012-13 AY relying upon the order pertaining to 2013-14 AY wherein admittedly rent was received by ....