2018 (11) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in making addition of Rs. 80,88,000/-, under the head Income from "House Property" by invoking the provisions of section 23(1 )(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adopting the Annual value of residential house at 9, Friends " Colony, New Delhi at a notional value of Rs. 80,88,000/- p.a., as against Rs. 24,000/- p.a. declared by the appellant being the actual rent received/receivable. In any case, the value adopted is highly excessive and unreasonable. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the department has been consistently assessing the income from house property on the basis of the actual rent received. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the assessee (ITA No. 2010, 5762 to 5766/Del/2013 A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2009-10 order dated 5/9/2016). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT (A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. DR could not distinguish any facts of the present Assessment Year with the earlier Assessment Years i.e. 2004-05 to 2009-10 wherein the Tribunal allowed the identical issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held as under:- "10. Considering the above submissions made by the parties, and having gone through the Ld. Authorized Representative, we fully concur with the contention of Ld. Authorized Representative, which is now established proposition o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accepted the rent form property in question at Rs. 24,000/-. 11. In the case of the CIT v Angael Infin (P) Ltd. (supra) stand taken by the Revenue was that assessee Company had received rent of Rs. 91,95,000/- on the premises let out by it and had also received interest free deposit of Rs. 3,22,50,000/- . The Assessing Officer noted that property had been let out to the sister concern of the assessee company and, therefore, the interest free deposit had been influenced by the rent fixed by the assessee company. He held that the premises, therefore, was not covered by Maharasthra Rent Control Act and the mandate of section 23(f)(a) of I.T. Act, 1961 is applicable. The stand of the Revenue was opposed by the assessee with the submis....