Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2011 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 1230 - HC - Income TaxNon occupancy charges - transfer fees / betterment charges - principle of mutuality - assess the rental income for letting out the terrace under the head income from house property subject to deduction u/s.24
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to delete the addition of non occupancy charges based on the principle of mutuality. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to delete the addition of transfer fees/betterment charges based on the principle of mutuality. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to assess the rental income for letting out the terrace under the head income from house property subject to deduction u/s.24. Analysis: 1. The first issue raised by the revenue was regarding the addition of non-occupancy charges. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the addition, citing that the amount was received from members and not occupants, thus applying the principle of mutuality. The revenue contended that previous court decisions favored the assessee on similar grounds, making it inapplicable to entertain this issue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed concerning this question. 2. The second issue pertained to the addition of transfer fees/betterment charges. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of this addition based on the principle of mutuality. The revenue argued that previous court decisions supported the assessee's position, rendering this issue non-entertainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed concerning this question as well. 3. The final issue involved the assessment of rental income for letting out the terrace under the head income from house property, subject to deduction under section 24. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee, following its decisions in previous cases. The revenue did not file appeals against these decisions due to the small tax effect and failed to point out any errors in the ITAT's orders. As a result, the court found no reason to entertain the appeal on this question and dismissed it with no order as to costs.
|