9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 5 - Supreme Court). Income derived from the house property as rent - A.L.V. i.e. rental income - assessee is the owner of two residential units. Allahabad property is jointly owned by one Smt. Ansuya Devi as per the Court Decree. A.L.V. was considered at Rs.90,000/-. 1/5th was deducted for the house repair etc. Thus, the A.L.V. comes at Rs.72,000/-. Being 50% owner, it comes to Rs.36,000/-. Regarding Lucknow property, the A.L.V. @ 9,000/- per month which comes to Rs.1,18,800/-. 1/5th repair was deducted i.e. Rs.23,760/-. Thus, the net rental income for Lucknow property comes to Rs.95,040/- - deduction u/s 23(1) denied for both the properties as the properties were less than 5 years old - Held that:- The assessee could not substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT, Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) and assessing officer can change the A.L.V. for rented property for 9 months to 12 months without any evidence to support the finding and a finding without evidence on record is unsustainable ? (j) Whether agriculture income given by the assessee if only partly accepted by the income tax authorities the non accepted portion of the agriculture income can be treated as income from other sources without any evidence or material for the same ? (k) Whether agriculture being in "state list" under schedule VII of the Constitution of India any mode of keeping account of Agriculture income can be imposed by the income tax authorities ? (m) Whether I.T.A.T. or CIT (appeals) or assessing officer can pass an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own the rental income at Rs.90,000/-. 1/5th for repair etc. i.e. Rs.18,000/- was deducted. Thus, A.L.V. comes to Rs.90,000-18,000= Rs.72,000/- only. The AO, as per computation given in his order, has taken the half share of the rental income of Rs.36,000/- as the assessee is the co-sharer in this property. The claim under Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act was denied, as the property was newly constructed property. Regarding the Lucknow property, the A.L.V. was taken @ 9,900 per month, which comes at Rs.1,18,800/- and 1/5th was deducted i.e. Rs.23,760/-. Thus, the total income comes to Rs.95,040/-. The claim under Section 23(1) was denied, as the property was less than 5 years old. The property was not a joint property. So, the entire in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears that on 16.11.1992, a certificate of the Tehsildar was issued, which is not relevant for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 1997-98. For claiming the benefit of the agriculture income, it is necessary to produce the certificate for the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee should maintain the accounts pertaining to entire agriculture activity. In the instant case, no account was maintained by the assessee. The claim was ad hoc, which was examined by the lower authorities. The addition was restricted on the basis of estimation. The estimation is a question of facts as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT; (2008) 12 SCC 458. Regarding A.L.V. i.e. rental income, it appears that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
