2021 (10) TMI 1368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....45,36,000(reduced from Rs.56,70,000): (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.45,36,000(reduced from Rs,.56,70,000) as income from house property in respect of 90 shops. (2) The shops already having been rented and income demonstrably shown, the learned CIT(a) passed the order in post haste, before the appellant could furnish the evidence on rental income. (3) The appellant further submits since two shops being used by the appellant for administrative purpose cannot be considered for the purpose of house property income. (II) Miscellaneous: (1) The learned CIT(A) did not deal with the ground of the error by the Assessing Officer in directi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s brought to tax as "income from house property". On appeal before the ld.CIT(a), the assessee was given partial relief wherein the ld. CIT(A) determined ALV of Rs. 64,80,000/- i.e. @ Rs. 6000/- per shop per month and after granting deduction under section 24(a) of the Act of Rs. 19,44,000/- determined Net Rental Income of Rs.45,36,000/-, thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (ld.AR) of the Assessee and the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of authorities below. 4. At the outset of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee submits that he is not pressing Ground No.(I) 2 and 3 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 18.12.2018 and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders 9P.) Ltd., 164 TAXMAN 342 (Guj HC). Theld.AR submits that on similar set of facts the Co-ordinate Bench in Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani (supra) by following the decision in Neha Builders (P.) Ltd.,(supra) held that provisions of section 23 of the Act are not applicable wherein units are allowing in stock-in-trade. 5. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue after going thorough grounds of appeal, decision of Jurisdictional High Court in Neha Builders (P.) Ltd., and decision of Tribunal in Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani (supra) submits that she is strongly relying on the order of ld.CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have....