TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in 1. holding that the order of the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, given on the same facts in the Appellant's own case for the Assessment Year 1996-97, for determining the Income from House property, is not applicable for the assessment year in the present appeal i.e. for Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. holding that for the Assessment 1996-97, the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Rent Control Act were not applicable, whereas the actual observation was that 'no standard rent of the house property involved in this case stands determined'. 3. not appreciating that even under The Maharashtra Rent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....297/- being 22.62% share from a flat at Sea Lord, Mumbai. The annual value was taken on the basis of municipal rateable value. 3. The Assessing Officer took a view that even though the market rate of rent is much more higher in the locality, the annual value u/s.23(1)(a) taken by the assessee is lesser amount. After relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1964] 51 ITR 353, Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Jamanadas Prabhudas vs. CIT reported in 20 ITR 160 and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sakarlal Balabhai reported in 100 ITR 97 he estimated the rent for which the property might be l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circumstances of the case, there is a material difference between the position in law as applicable in A.Y. 96-97 which has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT and the facts in the impugned assessment year on the issue of applicability of Rent Control Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, with due respect the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in Appellant's own case in A.Y. 96-97 was given under different provisions of law and therefore, not applicable to the facts of the case. In so far as the merits of the ALV determined by the AO, Appellant states that though the provisions are applicable, no standard rent has been determined under the Rent Control Act and therefore, the only basis can be of municipal valuation. This sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that both the properties were not let out either in part or for any period in the relevant Assessment Year or in the earlier years. Section 23 envisages the determination of annual value of the property and no where it has been provided that for determining the annual value, municipal value cannot be taken into consideration. We, therefore, find that the findings of the ITAT order in the case of the appellant is squarely covers the issue in this year also. The relevant finding of ITAT after considering the catena of case laws has observed and held as under : "Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case together with the fact that the assessment year involved is 1996-97 i.e. after the amendment of Section 23 by inserti....