TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circle 23, Mumbai (in short ACIT) for the assessment year 2012-13 vide order dated 09-03-2015 & 11-03-2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only common issue in these two appeals of different assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in charging deemed income by taking Annual Letting Value(ALV) of unsold flat, which is closing stock of the assessee. Exactly identical grounds are raised by both the assessee and we will take up the issue from ITA No. 5248/Mum/2016 and the assessee has raised the following two grounds: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of othe case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO in charging ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from house property, the deciding factor is the nature of the activity of the assessee and the nature of the operations in relation to the property. In the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., the assessee-company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Accordingly, the rental income from some shops and stalls developed and rented out by the assessee was held to be assessable as income from house property. While holding so, the Hon'ble Court took note of the fact that letting out of the property was not the object of the assessee. Similarly, in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the assessee was engaged in the activity of acquiri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. Further, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and, therefore, the said decision is also squarely applicable to the present case. 20. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, I hold that the AO has rightly assessed deemed income from We unsold units in the hands of the appellant as per the provisions of Sec.22 and 23 of the Act. It may be mentioned here that before me, the appellant has not objected to the AO's working of annual letting value and computation of income from the house property. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 38,24,814/- made by the AO is upheld on the grounds of appeal tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. The capacity of being an owner was not diminished one whit, because the assessee carried on business of developing, building and selling flats in housing estates. The argument that income tax is levied not on the actual receipt (which never arose in this case) but on a notional basis, i.e. ALV and that it is therefore not sanctioned by law, in the opinion of the Court is meritless. ALV is a method to arrive at a figure on the basis of which the impost is to be effectuated. The existence of an artificial method itself would not mean that levy is impermissible. Parliament has resorted to several other presumptive methods, for the purpose of calculation of income and collection of tax. Furthermore, application of ALV to determine the tax i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 56/2001 and 114/2001. In all the concerned years the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 32 AB (1)(b) contending that it had utilized amounts during the previous year for purchase of new machinery or plant. The Appellate Commissioner had allowed its claim, and in some instances, the Tribunal did so. The revenue urges that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit, since it did not carry on eligible business at the relevant time. The assessee, on the other hand, counters by contending that the eligibility for the benefit was never in issue, or questioned by the tax authorities, and what was in fact considered as well as decided was the correct method of computation. 16. This court is of the opinion that the question....