9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -done according to law. The question relates to income from house property. The rent received is less than the annual value estimated by the municipal corporation authorities. The ITO computed the annual value on the basis or rent received. That was in 1977. Even in that computation there were some disputes about the taxes deductible. So, in appeal the AAC set aside the assessments for being re-do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be accepted. 2. We decline to interfere. The reasons given by the CIT are sufficient to show that assessments were prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It may also be necessary for the ITO to examine whether the tenants are protected by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act or not. That may of course not be conclusive but it may be relevant. Such things havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat rent received should be the basis. Hence the departmental appeal. 2. We find no reason to interfer. The rent received reflects the annual value. The ITO has no case as seen from the assessment order on the grounds of appeal that the rent received is at concessional rate or influenced by extra commercial consideration or anything like or similar to it. So, the rent received is the sum for whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gher than the rent received, the annual value should be only on the assessment basis of municipal valuation. 5. There is no substance of limitation raised by the assessee because what is not the order of 1977 but the order of 1979 passed in consequence of the appellate order. Both are orders prejudicial to the interest of revenue because both are on the basis of rent received. But what is revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
