2016 (2) TMI 1248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thi For the Respondent : None ORDER Per B R Baskaran, AM: The appeal filed by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-20, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice was served upon the assessee through department. Hence, we proceed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months also. 4. Besides the above, the assessee had also claimed various expenses and declared business loss there from. The AO, however, determined the business income of the assessee at NIL, since the assessee did not carry on any other business activity. 5. The AO had also noticed that the assessee has received deposits to the tune of Rs. 48,50,000/- from three of its tenants. Due to disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of determination of house property income and income assessed u/s 41(1) of the Act. The assessee has also filed cross-objection in respect of determination of business income at NIL. 8. We heard the ld.DR and perused the record. We notice that the property was let out for a period of ten months and it remained vacant for a period of two months. We futher notice that there is no finding by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport for our view from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tip Top Typography (ITA No.1213 of 2011 dated 08-08-2014). In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 9. With regard to the addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) has given categorical finding that liability o....