9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1460 - AT - Income TaxIncome from house property - ALV determination - exclusion of ALV of spaces/flats under litigation/disputes - AO has included ALV in respect of 23 spaces/flats measuring 7511 sq ft in Jyot Shikar Building, Janakpuri which was completed 20 years back but was not approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for occupation on the ground that the same were not as per the actual plan - HELD THAT - We find that since the evidences have not been submitted before the lower authorities, this grievance has been decided against the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary documentary evidences to justify its claim of non-inclusion of ALV of storage spaces of 7511 sq. ft in Jyoti Shikar, Janakpuri. AO is directed to examine the evidences and decide the issue afresh. Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Inclusion of ALV of certain properties claimed by the assessee to be occupied for its own business purposes - In our considered opinion, section 22 of the Act itself excludes ALV of such properties of which the assessee is owner and has occupied for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him. Since the assessee has furnished necessary evidences which have been duly verified by the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1(a) is dismissed. ALV of properties where rent has been considered as business income - Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished assessment orders for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer has excluded the properties which have been given on rent for calculation of notional rental value. Following the findings given in Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT (A) correctly directed to exclude such properties. 5% increase per annum on ALV - CIT(A) deleted addition - It is a fact that for increase by 5%, the Assessing Officer has neither brought any comparable case on record nor there is any evidence to justify such increase. In the absence of any evidence, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1(c) is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D on a dividend income - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Bank Ltd 2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT has held that where the assessee has sufficient own funds, it will be presumed that the investments are made from own funds available with the assessee. As the assessee has own sufficient own funds, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 is accordingly dismissed. Denial of deduction being advance lease rent money - claim of the assessee was rejected since it was not claimed in the original return of income, the AO is not empowered to reduce the returned income - AO also did not entertain the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee has not filed any revised return of income -HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the claim was made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). It is also not in dispute that neither the ld. CIT (A) called for any remand report nor he has given any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim as per the evidences furnished before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidence in support of its claim and the Assessing Officer is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh. Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. Delayed employee s contribution to PF - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that there was a delay in depositing the employee s PF. It is also not in dispute that the same has been deposited before filing return of income. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of AMIL Ltd 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that if the employee s contribution is deposited before filing return of income, no disallowance could be made. Respectfully following the decision supra , we decline to the interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 4 is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Annual Letting Value [ALV] of unsold flats shown as stock in trade. 3. Non-exclusion of ALV of spaces/flats under litigation/disputes. 4. Addition of notional ALV taking market value. 5. Deletion of addition made under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. 6. Claim of deduction for advance lease rent money. 7. Deletion of disallowance on account of employee's contribution to PF. 8. Claim of lease rent. Analysis: 1. The cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Common issues were heard together and disposed of for convenience. 2. The issue of ALV of unsold flats as stock in trade was decided against the assessee based on a previous court decision. Ground No. 1 and 1.2 were dismissed. 3. The non-exclusion of ALV of spaces under litigation was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination due to lack of submitted evidence. Ground No. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Addition of notional ALV based on market value was dismissed as the ground was not contested seriously by the assessee. 5. The disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) based on the assessee having sufficient own funds, which was upheld. 6. The claim for advance lease rent money was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) but was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination as it was raised for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). 7. The disallowance on account of employee's contribution to PF was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the amount was deposited before filing the return of income, following a relevant court decision. 8. The claim of lease rent was allowed for statistical purposes based on previous findings. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcomes.
|
