TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 11,02,060/- under the head income from property for the assessment year under appeal . (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of notional income in respect of six flats held by the appellant as stock in trade holding that the appellant was liable to notional income on the same under the provisions of section 22 of the Income tax Act 1961. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition under section 22 of Income Tax Act by applying average rate of notional rental income of Rs. 35,839/- in respect of six flats with which were remained unsold during the year. On appeal before learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), the action of Assessing Officer was confirmed, thus, present appeals filed before this Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee are in fact covered in favour of assessee in assessee's own case for earlier and subsequent assessment years; copy of such decision is filed. In earlier and subsequent years, the Assessing Officer made similar addition, which were confirmed by Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and on further appeal before Tribunal the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vacant flats/bungalows. The taxpayer submitted that flats bungalows were its stock in trade, from which no income could be taxed under the head income from 'house property'. The Tribunal after considering the decision of Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance (supra) and Gujarat High Court in Neha Builder (supra) has taken a view in favour of the assessee. It was also held by Tribunal that section 23(5) cannot be applied for the year under consideration as its application is applicable from AY 2017-18. The ld AR of the assessee has also filed details of rent received during AY 2013-14 vide page No. 12 of paper book. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior departmental representative (Sr DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower ....