TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 37,67,400 made under the head Income from House Property in respect of vacant units during the year. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing the appellate sufficient opportunity of being heard. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the Grounds of Appeal herein above and to submit such further arguments, statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. The appeal filed by assessee is barred by 1 day in terms of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r own purpose and the remaining portion were not let out during the year. The assessee was on the look-out for prospective tenants for its premises, but some units could not be let out due to lack of competitive customers. Such vacant properties were leased out in the subsequent year. The assessee contended that as per the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, the rent received or receivable during the year may be Nil due to vacancy for the whole year under consideration. The AO did not accept the reply of the assessee and held that the case of the assessee is covered by the section 23(1)(a) of the Act and gross annual value has to be on the basis of expected reasonable rate. He held that the facts of the assessee are not covered by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the addition made by AO in the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 13.08.2024. On further appeal, the ITAT, Mumbai in case of Classic Mall Development Company Limited vs. ACIT, in ITA No.5320/Mum/2024, dated 21.03.2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee. He has further relied on the decisions of the various Tribunals, i.e., Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 110 TTJ 89, ITO vs. Metaoxide P. Ltd., ITA No.4428/Mum/2016, ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, ITA No.2217/Del/2010, Informed Technologies India Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.6466/Mum/2014, Sonu Realtors P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.2892/Mum/2016, Priyananki Singh vs. ACIT, ITA No.6698/Del/2015 and The Phoenix Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.46/Mum/2015. He, therefore, requested that the addition made by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the activity of operating and managing the commercial complex. In this case also, ld. Assessing Officer had made addition in respect of deemed rent on vacant units for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11. On this issue, the Coordinate Bench held that assessee is into the business of running commercial premises, i.e., a mall, units of which are provided on lease to various tenants. It is obvious that the assessee would have taken sufficient efforts to let out the property. No reasonable business person would not want to let out its premise at the loss of revenue, if any opportunity exists. Accordingly, Assessing Officer's assumption that the properties were not intended to be let out was held to be erroneous one. It was also noted that t....