TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 30.03.2023. The assessment was framed by the Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 10.03.2021. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to revision order passed by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act, as assessment order was for limited scrutiny assessment and the ld. PCIT now want to enlarge the scope of limited scrutiny by setting aside assessment order. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative and exhaustive, hence need not be reproduced. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Menon Eternity'. It was constructed only for the purpose of providing office space for IT Companies and as per the agreement for lease there is separate provision in addition to payment of lease rentals for the building for payment of amounts for the services to be rendered in the nature of maintenance charges. Hence, the assessee offered the maintenance charges as income from other sources and claimed the consequential expenses. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee drew our attention to the reply dated 13.03.2023 that assessee had filed complete details before the ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment ie. copies of bills and invoices to e-Proceedings response. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as maintained by the builder, viz., M/s Lancor Holdings through its sister concern, M/s Lancor Maintenance & Services Ltd. In view of certain dispute, M/s Lancor holdings and myself, an arbitration suit was filed. In the mean time, M/s Lancor Maintenance & Services Ltd., refused to maintain the property and walked out and the fact of which was informed to the Arbitrator. 7. Later, I had to take up the maintenance as requested by the Arbitrator and accordingly, I am maintaining the whole property by collecting maintenance charges from the tenants and incurring expenditures there for. Because of the Arbitration dispute, some of the tenants have vacated the property. However I have to maintain the entire property''. Apart ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he second question, the ld. PCIT was of the view that ld. Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries into various facets of maintenance expenses claimed by the assessee. This resulted in the assessment order being erroneous and in so far as prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to all the replies filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 10.02.2020 which is reproduced at para 4 above. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s shown in Schedule OS of ITR and interest income shown in P & L a/c with the receipts reported in 26AS u/s 193 and 194A. Please explain the reasons for the discrepancy, if any. 7. Provide comparison of Income from other sources and deductions claimed u/s 57 during relevant A.Y. 2018-19 and last two years'. Even the assessee has replied complete queries regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 57 of the Act and specifically it is a simplicater case of limited scrutiny assessment. As urged by the ld. Counsel that this issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi, [2020] 120 taxmann.com 187 (Madras), wherein it is held as under:- 17. The assessing officer i....