AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short 'the Act'. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We come to Revenue's appeal ITA 961/Kol/2017. Its first and foremost substantive ground seeks to revive u/s 14A r.w 8D disallowance of Rs. 14,04,497/- in relation to assessee's exempt dividend income of Rs. 4,69,052/- derived in the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer appears to have computed the impugned disallowance in the nature of direct expenses, proportionate interest and administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(1)(i) to (iii) involving sums of Rs. 16,257/- paid towards security transaction tax, Rs. 11,17,790/- and Rs. 2,17,750/-; respectively totalling to Rs. 14,04,797/- in question. 3. The assessee preferred appeal. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice at this stage that assessee's Cross Objection CO 54/Kol/2017 raises its latter substantive ground in seeking to restrict impugned disallowance @ 1% of the impugned dividend income. We are unable to accept the same since the disallowance in question has to be computed as per prescribed formula under Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules w.e.f AY 2008-09. The assessee's instant plea is therefore rejected. 6. Next question that arises for our apt adjudication relates to computation of the impugned disallowance. There is no material on record which could dispute that assessee has paid security transaction tax of Rs. 16,257/- in the nature of direct expenditure to be disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(i) of Income Tax Rule. The same is accordingly confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04,797/- in view of our foregoing discussion. 7. The Revenue's latter substantive ground challenges correctness of CIT(A)'s directions issued to the Assessing Officer to treat the amount in question of Rs. 147,27,864/- as income from house property than from "other" sources by way of the following detailed discussion:- "Second issue regarding income form house property: Ground no. 8 reads as follows: That the learned AO erred in treating the Income from House Property amounting to Rs. 1,47,27,864/- as income from other sources and disallowing statutory deduction of Rs. 43,82,359/-u/s 24 of the IT Act. The company had rent income from the same property in earlier years as well wherein the AO had accepted it as i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lete performance on our part. We have control over property as an owner would have. Registration would be completed as and when possible. In such circumstances we are owner for the purpose of earning rent and assessment of income for rent received. Registration and mutation etc. are time consuming procedures and it is ground reality that registration may take long time due to several reasons applicable in particular case. In our case permission from WEBEL and URBAN Development department of the Government of West Bengal is required. In absence of the same property was not transferred and registered in our name. After getting possession of the office, we have approached Untech wireless Ltd (UNITECH) for le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction u/s. 24 he changed head of income in respect of rent for both properties in a very casual manner. This is not at all justified. Most proper head of income is income from house property as assessed in earlier years. Following consistency, the learned AO should have assessed income under head income from house property. Kindly direct the learned AO to compute rental income under head 'income form house property' and allow all eligible deductions. In case any income is not held not assessable under head house property, then kindly direct the AO to allow expenses and depreciation on construction cost. A statement showing bifurcation of cost of construction and depreciation allowable is enclosed accordingly we request....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und admissible and allowed. The alternate claim for depreciation as claimed by filing additional ground is not required to be adjudicated hence dismissed as not necessary." Mr. Dasgupta strongly reiterates assessment findings to plead that the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the amount in question under the head "income from other source" as in his view, the property ought to comprise of building or land appurtenant thereto & it should be in assessee's ownership to be used for any business or profession. Mr. Dasgupta therefore states that there is no landlord tenant relation between payee/assessee and ultimate prayer M/s Unitech Ltd. We find no merit in Revenue's instant grievance. Case record before us comprises of the relevant re....