9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rokerage paid under the head Income from property . 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant s submission that the brokerage paid to lease out the property was required to be taken in determining the annual letting value of the let out property under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant s submission that the brokerage paid to lease out the property was required to be taken in determining the annual value of the let out property under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in the case of Banwarlal Anand v. ITO in I. T. A. No. 1587 (Delhi) of 1992 for allowing the brokerage paid under collection charges under section 24(1)(viii) would not help the assessee, for the reason that relevant section, viz., 24(1)(viii) had been scrapped with effect from April 1, 1993, and the assessment year in question was 1996-97. Thus, the assessee s contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and Rs. 3,40,000 claimed as expenditure while computing Income from house property was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by this order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, before whom also similar co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal extracted elsewhere of this order. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee tendered as his submissions the same contentions made before the authorities below. He pleaded that the brokerage of Rs. 3,40,000 was according to the agreement and the assessee had not received one month s rent at all. According to him, the actual rent received by the assessee was only of 11 months rent and hence the same only should be taken for the purpose of computing ALV. Adverting to section 23(1)(b), counsel pleaded that the wordings mentioned therein are actual rent received and pleaded that according to the above phrase, the amount retained with the assessee can only be treated as actual rent received. It was also pleaded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, speaks of actual rent received but in this case on hand, the assessee, according to us, had received 12 months rent and out of which he paid Rs. 3,40,000 being one month s rent as brokerage. At best this can only be application of income and hence cannot be claimed as expenditure under section 23(1)(b). As regards the decision reported in Neelam Cable Mfg. Co. v. Asst. CIT [1997] 63 ITD 1 (Delhi), the facts in that case are allowability of amount spent on security services, whereas in this case on hand the assessee had paid brokerage, which cannot be treated on par with the facts of that case. Turning to section 24(1)(viii), as rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, the said section had been scrapped from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
