TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnual 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 learned CIT(A) failed to consider the issue in the light of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 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 addition of Rs. 5,19,11,202/- to the income of the assessee under Section 22 of the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the effect that the CIT(A) may be directed to decide the alternate ground i.e. ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 that deemed income - which is the basis for assessment under the ALV method, should not be attributed. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 used for the purpose of business. The intention of the lawmakers, in other words, was that occupation of one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase 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 taken on 99 years lease in the said case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), whereas in the assessee's case, the lease period i....