TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi, in respect of property rented out by the assessee. 2) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that such annual mixed use charges are not in the nature of taxes levied by any local authority. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the assessee was able to realize higher commercial rent in respect of the property only because of the statutory payment of mixed land use charges and accordingly such charges so paid by the assessee stood diverted at source by an overriding charge on the receipt of such commercial rent derived by the assessee and accordingly ought to have been allowed as deduction. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28-10- 2015 declaring total amount of Rs. 1,83,76,610/-. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with the flowing region. (i) High increase in annual lettable value of house property (ii) Large deduction claimed under chapter VI-A. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Del/2018 4. Shri Saif Ali Khan vs. ACIT -11(1) (ITA NO. (1653/Mum/2009 5.CIT vs. R.J. Wood (P.) Ltd. [2012]20 taxmann. Com 599 (Delhi) 6. Transmarine Corporation vs. ACIT -17(3) (ITANo. 7001/Mum/20018) 6. Contra, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the below authority. 7. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. In the present case the assessee claim of deduction of Mixed Use Charges paid by the assessee to the MCD. Whereas, the assessee has claimed the Mixed Use Charges paid as deduction from the rental income received from its tenants. The Ld. AR mentioned that the annual value of the property has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act. We consider it appropriate to refer to Section 23(1)(b) of the Act which is read as under: (1) For the Purpose of section 22 the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- (a) The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) Where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect there of is in excess of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under: "3. We have heard the parties. The Ld. Counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 and in the case of ITO vs. Gopichand P. Godwani 1 SOT 374 (Mum). The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee's claim is covered by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sharmila Tagore (supra) in the said case it is held that the maintenance charges paid by the assessee have to be deducted even determining the annual value of the property u/s. 23. We, accordingly, following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench allow the grounds taken by the assessee and direct the A.O. to recompute the income under the head 'income from house property'. 7.2 We find in the case of ITO Vs. Gopichand P. Godhwani (supra) the Hon'ble tribunal has held as under: "5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is the contention of the assessee that the actual rent received by it is in excess of fair rent or standard rent under the rent control legislation. If this contention of assessee is correc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue should be decided on the basis of the actual rent received." 6. It is not disputed by revenue that only section 23(1)(b) is applicable to the present case as it is also not the case of assessing officer as he has computed the house property income as per actual rent received. In this view of the situation, if the outgoings in respect of which additions have been deleted by CIT (A) were the liability of the assessee, the same should be excluded from the assessable income as the net amount only can be considered which is received by the assessee or is receivable by the assessee as per express provisions of section 23[1](b). However, this fact has not been considered ascertained that whether the amounts claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the assessing officer in respect of car-parking, water charges and municipal charges and other charges were the actual liability of the assessee or not. This factual aspect has to be examined as per the terms of agreement as well as keeping in view the factual aspect of the matter. We, therefore, consider it necessary to restore these appeals as well as Cross Objections to the file of assessing officer to determine the fact that wh....