TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred as "the Act"] dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai [herein after referred as "the AO"] was partly allowed. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred appeal before us. 02. Facts culled out from records shows that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income [ ROI] on 05.08.2016 at loss of Rs.23,68,320/-. This ROI was selected for scrutiny. The AO noted that the assessee is holding the position of director of companies engaged in the real estate business. The assessee has shown loss from income from house property and income from other sources. The Ld. AO noted that as per the balance sheet as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.37,26,616/- against the deemed rental income of Ambey Valley property as originally the assessee treated the same premises as self occupied and therefore the annual would be nil. The assessee was asked to provide proof regarding interest on loan from property, in response to that the assessee submitted that originally the interest paid of Rs. 37,27,616/- was claimed as deduction against the income from house property of Ambey Valley but now as assessee withdrawing the income offered and claiming that property as self occupied property, thus requested considering the deduction of house loan to the extent to Rs. 2 lacs only The AO stated that for A.Y. 2015-16 identical issue was considered wherein the loan was stated to be of two differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filling of return of income originally where Rs.1,15,40,800/- was taken as sale consideration. However, the property was sold for Rs.78 lacs as per the agreement to sale dated 28.04.2015. Reason was stated by assessee that assessee has sold the property below the market price, as the market condition of real estate section was not good. The Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and said that it does not satisfy the condition laid down u/s 50C of the Act, as the assessee did not furnish any valuation report or proof of the fair market value of the property. Therefore, he made an addition of difference between actual sale value of Rs.1,15,40,800/- and market value of the property of Rs. 94,43,000/- u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is aggrieved. 08. Though the assessee has raised three grounds of appeal but during the course of hearing, the assessee did not press the ground no. 2 against the interest disallowance. Therefore, ground 2 is dismissed. 09. The first ground of appeal is to consider the Ambey Valley property as self-occupied property. We find that the Ld. AO did not consider the claim of the assessee as it was not made in the original return of income and Ld. CIT(A) denied the claim as the claim was made during the assessment proceedings and not part of the return of income. After hearing the parties, we find that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has revised computation of income where by the claim of the assessee was change....