9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property - Held that:- In the instant case, the impugned property was let and the termination notice was given in July 2008 and it was stated that the tenant has vacated the property in that month itself. The Ld A.R also made a statement at bar that the assessee has offered the rent pertaining to the period from April, 2008 to July 2008. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee has let out this property during this year itself, after it was vacated by M/s Athma Productions P Ltd. The assessee has stated that the property was only let out in June 2009 and the same has not been proved to be wrong. In view of the above, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly we set aside the order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), no disallowance u/r. 8D(2)(ii) is called for. In this connection, he also drew our attention to the copies of the balancesheets of the three years under consideration. 5. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We find merit in the contentions of the assessee. For the sake of convenience, we extract below details of own funds and investments available with the assessee in each of the three years as culled out from the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee. Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He submitted that the AO himself has noted down the nature of services as providing maintenance of surrounding precints of the rented premises, supervising power and water supply, provision of car parking, disposal of garbage etc. The Ld A.R submitted that the services described above are of routine nature, which is closely connected to renting of property. Accordingly he contended that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order passed by the AO on this issue. 8. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has collected separately the service charges and hence it is not related to the renting of premises. Accordingly he submitted that the AO has rightly assessed the same as income from other sources. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s P Ltd. The AO assessed the same as income of the assessee. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessee explained that assessee has terminated the lease with M/s Athma Productions P Ltd on 29-07-2008 and the said party has also vacated the premises in July 2008 itself. The assessee furnished a copy of letter dated 08-09-2008 written by it to M/s Athma Productions P Ltd acknowledging peaceful possession of the property. The assessee submitted that the very same premise was let out to M/s Meridhun Entertainment P Ltd under an agreement dated 28-06-2009 subsequently. It was further submitted that the security deposit of ₹ 4,50,000/- collected from M/s Athma Productions P Ltd was credited as income of the assessee in June 2009, after settlement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable. Under sec. 23(1)(a), the Annual value of the property shall be deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Thus, it is seen that the provisions of sec. 23(1)(c) provides for adoption of actual rent received in the case of a property which is let and which remained vacant during the whole or any part of the year. It can be seen that the provisions of sec. 23(1)(c) do not provide for assessment of any notional rent. 15. In the instant case, the impugned property was let and the termination notice was given in July 2008 and it was stated that the tenant has vacated the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
