2019 (2) TMI 1647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 28,14,276/-, in respect of expenses incurred on providing amenities to tenants, while computing income under the head "Income from House Property". 2) Without prejudice, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 1,84,170/- following appellate orders in earlier years, in cases of separate agreement for provision of amenities. 3) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance under section 14A, ignoring the legal contentions raised by the Appellant dur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....011-12 in ITA No. 414/Mum/2017 dated 24.07.2017, wherein similar grounds of appeal was restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue submits that he has no objection, if these grounds of appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the submission of both the parties and found that similar disallowance was made by Assessing Officer, however, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised contention that the entire amount received from the tenants on account of various services have not been spent and proportionate amount spent on tenants is reduced and remaining was offered for income. On the contention of the assessee, the ld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are also covered by the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (165 ITD 27), wherein it was held that only investment yielding exempt income has to be considered for calculating average investment for making disallowance. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that similar issue was restored to the file of Assessing Officer for AY 2011-12 to work out the disallowance afresh by excluding the investment which yielded no exempt income. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submits that these grounds may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the similar direction. 9. We have Considered the submission of both the parties and find that the identical issue was restor....