9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 310 - HC - Income TaxAddition on rental income of Kormangala Property - annual rateable value - Held that - Tribunal has followed the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in case of Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust Vs. Commissoner of Income-Tax reported at (1994 (1) TMI 71 - GUJARAT High Court ) whereby it was held that the reasonable return at the rate of 8.5% on the investment can be considered as the annual rateable value. Interest on the loan borrowed - Held that - Tribunal was justified in allowing interest on the loan borrowed. It is hardly required t o be stated that the Tribunal is the ultimate Court for the finding of fact and when once such finding is confirmed by the Tribunal, we do not find that any question of law would arise for consideration as sought to be canvassed Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22) - Held that - Tribunal after having considered the legal provisions of law of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, has negatived the contention of the Revenue on the factual premise the at the assessee in the present case was not a shareholder in the lender Company. Further, the Tribunal has al so relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Hilltop reported at (2008 (3) TMI 310 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ).
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in deleting the addition made by the assessing authority regarding rental income. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in allowing interest on the loan borrowed. 3. Consideration of advance received as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rental Income Addition: The Tribunal addressed whether the addition made by the assessing authority concerning the rental income of a property in Koramangala was justified. The assessing officer had estimated the fair rent based on prevailing rates in the locality. However, the Tribunal observed that the annual value for the property was determined by the BBMP at Rs. 29,722 for the relevant financial year. The Karnataka High Court, in a previous case, had established that in the absence of other details, the ALV fixed by the Corporation should be the yardstick for determining the ALV under section 23 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the actual rent received by the assessee was greater than the ALV determined by the BBMP. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s determination of the ALV, which was more favorable to the Revenue, and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue. 2. Interest on Loan Borrowed: The Tribunal examined whether the interest on the loan borrowed was justifiably allowed. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee borrowed loans to acquire the property, and there was no material evidence from the Revenue to disprove this finding. The CIT(A) noted that the property was initially acquired with a loan from ING Vysya Bank, which was later repaid using a loan from M/s Innovision Properties Pvt. Ltd. The outstanding loan was subsequently repaid by obtaining another loan from M/s Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to consider interest only on the amount relevant to the properties subjected to the lease agreement. The Tribunal confirmed these findings, and the High Court held that since the Tribunal is the ultimate fact-finding authority, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. 3. Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e): The Tribunal deliberated on whether the advance received from M/s Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. could be considered a deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal referenced the legal provisions of section 2(22)(e) and concluded that the conditions for considering the advance as deemed dividend were not met because the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Hilltop, which held that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company, not in the hands of a non-shareholder. Given that the assessee was not a shareholder, the Tribunal ruled that the advance could not be taxed as deemed dividend. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal's decisions on all three issues were upheld, confirming that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. The appeal was thus dismissed.
|
