9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nthly rent of Rs. 4,200 as per the lease deed dated 8-11-1980. On the basis of this lease deed the assessee had been showing the annual letting value of Rs. 54,000 year after year. For these two years also the assessee had declared ALV at Rs. 54,000. However, in the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that Municipal Authorities had determined the rateable value at Rs. 2,43,242 w.e.f. 1-4-1986. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why the ALV should not be taken at Rs. 2,43,242. In response to the same it was stated by the assessee vide letter dated 28-1-1994 that certain alterations in a small portion of the building were carried out by the lessee company at its own cost and that no additional in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have any benefit on account of alterations made by the lessee and the rental income earned by the tenant. No doubt the Municipal Authorities could take into consideration while determining the rateable value but as far as the lessor is concerned, it was not entitled to seek any rent more than what was agreed upon between the parties. The property was being subject to Rent Control Legislation and, therefore, the landlord could not enhance the rent. There is no allegation by the revenue that the sum of Rs. 54,000 was not the reasonable rent at the time when the factory premises was let out in 1980. Therefore, there was no material on record to hold that the lease agreement was not genuine. Therefore, we vacate the finding of the low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue at Rs. 50,400 per annum. 4. The next issue arising from the departmental appeal for assessment year 1991-92 relates to disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 1,00,640 on sale of shares. The assessee had sold 200 shares at a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs which is not in dispute. However, the cost of acquisition of these shares was taken at Rs. 4,51,600 being the fair market value as on 1-4-1974 since such shares were acquired before that date. In support of the same the assessee furnished balance-sheet of the company in which the shares were held by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with such explanation of the assessee. It was noticed by him that certain bonus shares had been issued and, therefore, considering this fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses @ Rs. 5,000 per month and consequently made an addition of Rs. 40,000. On appeal it was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessee was living jointly with his family and the Assessing Officer had not taken into consideration the withdrawals made by his father and mother amounting to Rs. 93,096 and Rs. 35,932 respectively. The CIT(A) accepted such explanation of the assessee and accordingly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the same the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. After hearing both the parties we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue on this issue inasmuch as nothing has been brought before us to controvert the explanation of the assessee before the CIT(A). Consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
