2024 (4) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x, Circle 16(1), Delhi. ('Ld. AO') are bad in law. 2 Impugned final assessment order dated 26-04-2022 is passed in contravention to provisions of section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with order dated 13-08-2020 passed by Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT"), thus being null and void and deserves to be quashed/ set aside. 3 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP was not justified and have erred by taxing gross composite rental income of INR 23,67,03,600 received from let out building space along with inbuilt infrastructure and other amenities under the head "Income from House Property' instead of 'Income from Other Sources completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court 3.1 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing proportionate tax depreciation and expenses under section ('u/s') 57 of the Act amounting to INR 22,94,79,442. 3.2 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in completely ignoring the order passed by the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Hon'ble ITA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Grounds no. 1 and 2 are general in nature and were not pressed. 4. Ground no. 3 relates to taxing gross composite rental income of Rs. 23,67,03,600/- received from let out building space along with inbuilt infrastructure and other amenities under the head 'Income from House Property' instead of 'Income from other Sources'. 4.1 During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish justification and complete details in respect of composite rent received from Microsoft Global Services Centre India Private Limited. The assessee filed a detailed reply giving full detail sought by the AO. The assessee explained why it is treating the income under the head 'income from other sources'. The explanation / details did not find any favour with the AO who was of the firm belief that the said income has to be taxed under the head 'income from house property'. Drawing support from the past history of the assessee, the AO treated the impugned income as 'income from house property'. 4.2 The assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A) but without any success. Before us, the Coun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AY 2012-13. 14. The AY under our consideration falls in between. 15. Admittedly, as Ld. AO says in para 4.3 of his order, in AY 2013-14 also the facts of the case are similar to that of the earlier years. On such admitted fact situation, the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal have decided this issue in earlier years as also in subsequent years in favour of the assessee. Therefore, there is no reason for us to deviate from the same in the absence of any fresh adverse material in the records. Accordingly the modified ground No.1, 2.1 and 2.2 are decided in favour of the assessee with the direction to the Ld. AO to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jay Metals (supra) in respect of the assessee's claim of expenses and depreciation under section 57 of the Act extracted by the Tribunal in para 22 of its order (supra) for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. We order accordingly." 12. Respectfully following the coordinate Bench order in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (supra), the issue is decided in favour of the assessee with the same directions to the AO as above." 4.4 On finding parity of facts, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Benc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;ble DRP) by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Delhi. (Ld. AO) are bad in law. 2 Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in determining total income of the Appellant at INR 8,88,04,19,920 as against a returned income of INR 8,15,16,56,110 as per the Modified Return of Income filed in pursuance of the bilateral APA. 3. Impugned final assessment order dated 27.05.2022 is passed in contravention to provisions of section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with order dated 13.08.2020 and 06.09.2021 passed by Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT), thus being null and void and deserves to be quashed/ set aside. 4. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP were not justified and have Cane erred by taxing gross composite rental income of INR 23.67,03,600 received from let out building space along with inbuilt infrastructure and other amenities under the head "Income from House Property' instead of 'Income from Other Sources' completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 4.1 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP er....