TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in excluding the cost of lifts, excalators, EPABX, etc., since those assets were not purchased by the assessee but were owned by a sister concern? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wherein only the cost of swimming pool has been reduced though the cost has rightly been arrived at by excluding the cost incurred by the sister concern in respect of certain assets and the Assessing Officer has worked ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Rs. 51,70,931 made by the Assessing Officer. The remaining addition was deleted. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" in short). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in reducing the disallowance to Rs. 1,88,940, as proper and justifiable. Hence, the present tax case by the Revenue. 3. Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has erred in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), wherein he has reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 51,70,931 to Rs. 1,88,940. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal is with regard to the computation of the income from a portion of the property sold during the year. Out of the total area of 2,85,875 sq. ft., an extent of 80,403 sq. ft. had been sold by the assessee to various persons during the year. There is no dispute regarding the sale value disclosed in the accounts, by the assessee. However, for calculating the cost in respect of the portion of the property sold, the Assessing Officer has worked out the unit cost at Rs. 360 per sq. ft. as in the last year and thus adopted the cost of the area of 80,403 sq. ft. at Rs. 2,89,45,080. The assessee had claimed the cost in respect of this portion of the property at Rs. 3,41,16,011. The difference of cost fixed by the Assessing Officer and that of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ually related to cost in respect of 5 numbers of lifts, 2 escalators, EPABX system, dish antenna, DPG interest provision and lease rent payable towards a swimming pool. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the rates, at which the shops or offices or flats were sold in this complex were inclusive of the above amenities. But for these facilities, the price for the flat, shop, office, etc., would have been much lower. He was of the opinion that if at all any amount could be disallowed, it was only the lease rent payable to the swimming pool because it was not an amenity available to all the flat owners, but a special facility provided to the interested persons on separate payments. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) hel....