9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in deleting the addition Rs. 98,20,722/- u/s. 54F of the IT Act, 1961 which the Assessing Officer had allowed in respect of only one unit by treating the units as two separate residential properties." 3. In this case the assessee was owner of the property at A-22, Westend Colony, New Delhi. It was having a basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor. The assessee derived rental income from the property. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with a developer, M/s Thapar Homes Ltd. on 8.5.2006 to develop, construct and build a fresh building on the said plot of land. The Assessing Officer, was of the view that the provisions of section 54 were not applicable to the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has not given exemption to the assessee for the first floor and the second floor, as they had been given out on rent. Considering the decision of the Karnataka High Court in D. Ananda Bassappa (Supra) and the decision in Prem Prakash Bhutani (Supra), the Assessing Officer should have given the exemption under section 54 to the assessee for the balance floors. As such, it is held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 for the basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor." 5. Against this order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us.
8. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and hence, uphold the same.
9. The next issue raised is that on the facts and on the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition Rs. 2,78,926/- towards portfolio management fees.
10. On this issue, ld. counsel of the assessee conceded that disallowance has been rightly made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, we allow this issue in favour of the Revenue.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/6/2011 upon conclusion of hearing. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
