TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O on the issue of income from house property amounting to Rs. 6,96,49,798/- by ignoring the fact that the annual letting value of the property known as West Tower was taxable as income from house Property" ITA No. 255/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O on the issue of income from house property amounting to Rs. 6,96,49,798/- by ignoring the fact that the annual letting value of the property known as West Tower was taxable as income from house Property." 3. The facts of both the appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 18/1/2016 and 10/3/2016. The Assessing Officer held that the annual rental income in respect of West Tower was Rs. 6,96,49,798/- and thus taxed the same, under the head income from house property and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision dated 5th February, 2016 in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee owns property adjacent to hotel building known as West Tower. This building is located in the same compound in which the hotel building is located. This building is not used for the hotel bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rent in the garb of interest free security deposit from the user (sub-leasee) of the property which has rightly been estimated and taxed u/s 22/23 of the IT Act. Therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer should be upheld. In this regard, the Ld. DR relied on the various judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts. The same are as follows: 1. Ram Pershad & Sons Vs CIT (Del) 81 Taxman 332 2. CIT Vs G. Ramesan (Ker) 241 ITR 426 3. N. Natarai Vs DCIT (Mad) 266 ITR 277 3. CIT Vs Parasmal Chordia (Mad) 233 ITR 147 4. Visveswarava Ind. Res. Dev. Centre Vs DCIT 59 ITD 156 (Mum) 5. CIT Vs Dhun D. Dalai (Mad) 233 ITR 143 6. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and the Hon'ble Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has come to the conclusion that it is the NDMC, which is the "owner of the premises and remains to be the owner of the premises in question". The Tribunal has further accepted the submissions of the assessee that in view of the provisions of section 27(iii) of the Act, it is the sub-licensee who would be "deemed owner" of those premises which the sub-licensees whereof transferred to the present occupiers and those occupiers are paying rent/license fee to the sub licensees. On that basis, the Tribunal has set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer and deleted this component of income holding that the same would not be chargeable to tax. 11. This is how the Department has filed the appeals pertaining to different assessme....