TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perty. The rent received from VARIN Commercial Pvt. Ltd., is Income from Business as declared by the appellant and therefore, the said income ought to have been accepted as "Business Income by the ITO. (b) The CIT(A) also erred in confirming the annual value of property at Rs. 26,90,000/- which is not supported by any evidence. Since the property was rented and actual rent was received the income from property cannot be taken at a figure higher than actual income earned from the property. Without prejudice your appellant submits that the property can at best be taken as per Annual Letting Value determined by the Baroda Municipal Corporation. 2.(a) The CIT(A) has also erred in confirming computation of total income of your appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground floor, first floor to fifth floor. The ground floor and first floor were let out by the assessee firm to "VCPL", which runs a departmental store therein, and has paid rent of Rs. 2.69 lakhs per month. He submitted that upper floor of the property i.e. second floor to fifth floor of the same property were let out to one of the partners of the assessee-firm for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh per annum. He submitted that the assessee has let out the property in question along with furniture and fixtures, and therefore, the rental value from "VCPL" as well as partner of the assessee-firm should have been assessed under the head "Income from Business". He referred to relevant portions of the lease agreement between the assessee firm ("lessor") a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt between the assessee-firm and "VCPL" shows that the rent was charged by the assessee-firm only for the "premises" as provided in the lease agreement. Providing of electrical panel and space for generator could not be said to be a separate service or asset and in fact no separate rent is charged for the same. We find that there was no provision of any services to be provided by the assessee to the "VCPL" or to the partner of the assessee-firm in the upper floor. The CIT(A) has recorded in his appellate order that the value of the building was shown at Rs. 3.86 crores whereas the value of the furniture and fixtures is of Rs. 87,226/- only, which are of insignificant value vis-à-vis value of the building. In these facts of the case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty or rent determinable as per the Rent Control Act or any standard rent and relied on decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Sarabhai (P.) Ltd., (2009) 176 TAXMAN 6 (Guj), CIT Vs. Tip Top Typography (2014) 48 taxmann.com 191 (Bom) and Smt. Kokilaben D. Ambani Vs. CIT, (2014) 49 taxmann.com 371 (Bom) in support of the case of the assessee. He submitted that the ground floor and first floor let out to "VCPL" were suitable for running Departmental store by the said "VCPL" whereas the fact remains that upper floors of the said buildings were having small rooms and not fit enough for any commercial use. He submitted that partner of the assessee-firm, running a hotel business under the name "Sudarshan Palace" has advanced loan of Rs. 163 lakhs to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two floors. In reply to a specific query from the Bench, no definite figure of the covered area let out to Sudarshan Palace could be filed before us. The CIT(A) has given a finding that it is not the appellant's case that the property was subjected to Rent Control Act or standard rent was got determined. No conclusive evidence could be led on behalf of the assessee to show that the 2nd floor of the asset was in broken condition and not usable for any commercial purpose. We find that the ground floor to first floor of the property was let out to "VCPL" at Rs. 2.69 lakhs per month, and that, there is a clear disparity in this case between the rent charged from related parties and from an unrelated parties for two portions of the property in q....