TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law in confirming the addition of notional Annual Letting Value of Rs. 5,19,11,202/- on closing stock of flats / spaces by following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in which various relevant facts were not brought out before their lordships and not considered by them. 1.2 That without prejudice to the Ground No. 1.1 above, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Apex Court which has been admitted and is pending for decision. 2. That without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court related to the assessment year 1988-89 and rendered in the context of the provisions of section 23 as it existed prior to substitution by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.08.2010 fixing the case for hearing on 14.09.2010. A detailed questionnaire alongwith notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12.010.2011 fixing the case for hearing on 24.10.2011. In response to the notice the Authorized Representatives appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed necessary details. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed 60% depreciation of UPS, Printers etc. by putting these items under the head "computer". The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,87,138/-. Further as relates to income from house property, the Assessing Officer made additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. However, the alternate grounds were not adjudicated upon. In the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, this Tribunal has set aside the identical issue to the CIT(A) [para 31-34, page 30 & 31 of ITAT order dated 17.08.2017 in ITA No. 5784/Del/2010 & 5310/Del/2012]. The only difference is that the appeals for the Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were disposed of by the CIT(A) prior to judgment in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (supra). As such, based on the legal submissions, the additions were deleted. For the assessment year in question i.e. 2009-10, the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal subsequent to the judgment, hence, applying the legal principles, the addition was sustained. The assessee has raised "additional ground" to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. The CIT(A) has taken into consideration decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. 354 ITR 180 regarding addition of notional Annual Letting Value of Rs. 5,19,11,202/- on closing stock of flats / spaces. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: "13. In the present case, the assessee is engaged in building activities. It argues that flats are held as part of its inventory of stock in trade, and are not let out. The further argument is that unlike in the other instances, where such builders let out flats, here there is no letting out and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on what constitutes a reasonable letting value, if the property were to be leased out in the marketplace. If the assessee's contention were to be accepted, the levy of income tax on unoccupied houses and flats would be impermissible - which is clearly not the case. 14. As far as the alternative argument that the assessee itself is occupier, because it holds the property till it is sold, is concerned, the Court does not find any merit in this submission. While there can be no quarrel with the proposition that "occupation" can be synonymous with physical possession, in law, when Parliament intended a property occupied by one who is carrying on business, to be exempted from the levy of income tax was that such property should be u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring period, it was an expenditure of capital nature and made the disallowance. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. (Supra) held as under: "I find that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has allowed one time premium of Rs. 48.02 lacs paid in respect of land taken on lease from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation as Revenue expenditure even though the said company was paying Rs. 40 per annum as annual rent. The Assessing Officer has treated the amount paid by the assessee as paid towards acquiring a benefit of enduring nature. The same cannot be sustained due to the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which also relates to a land taken on lease. The land was ta....