9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racted from ITA No.7292/Mum/2007 for Assessment Year 2004-05 are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of industrial gas plant and gases. It filed return declaring total income of ₹ 16,79,880/-. During the course of assessment it was observed by the AO that in the earlier Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 house property income was re-computed by adopting Annual Letting Value(ALV) at ₹ 2,16,00,000/-. Accordingly the assessee was asked to submit explanation as to why ALV should not be adopted at ₹ 2,16,00,000/- as was done in earlier Assessment Years. The assessee submitted its explanation which has been reproduced by the AO in para 4.2. of his order which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Year the rent received from all the units are available. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the provisions of section 23(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the Act further observed that the fact that the assessee has charged very low rate of rent from its sister concern becomes very clear when it is seen that the sister concern M/s. Sanghi Udyog India Ltd. immediately has sub-let the property to various multinationals and blue chip companies and has received rent to the tune of ₹ 2,17,54,500/-. The ld. CIT(A) after deducting ₹ 4,92,903/- being 5% return on the investment by M/s. Sanghi Udyog India Ltd. on furnishing and decoration of the property out of rent of ₹ 2,17,54,500/-, directed the AO to adopt ₹ 2,12,61,597/- (Rs. 217545 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Bom/93 for Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91 order dated 22.7.2002 to submit that the ALV has to be determined with reference to the actual rent received by the assessee and not what has been received by its tenants from the ultimate user. In support he also filed the copy of the said orders of the Tribunal . He therefore submits that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 7. On the other hand the ld. DR supports the order of the AO and the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute that the facts of the present case are si milar to the facts of the case of the assessee for the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome from house property in terms of section 23(1)(a) as under:- ₹ 1,50,000 (per month) x 12(Number of Units) x 12 =Rs.2,16,00,000 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal after considering various cases has held vide para-21 of its order dated 17.1.2006 supra as under : 21. Keeping in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has handed over the premises to the lessee on 21.03.2000 what he intended to hand over for a consideration of ₹ 5,00,000/- licence fee per month from the lessee but deferred the receipt of the same from its sister concern saying that the licence fee shall become payable only on the licensor receiving the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under : 29.2 The substituted section 23 retains the existing concept of annual value as being the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year i.e., annual letting value (ALV). However, in case of let out property, the concept of annual rent has been removed. The new section provides that where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable is in excess of the ALV, the amount so received or receivable shall be the annual value. This will be the case even if the property (or part of the property) was vacant for a part of the year, but the actual received or receivable during the year is still higher than the ALV. Where the property or any part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed u/s.143(3) of the Act on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee. 12. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee did not argue the above ground vis-a-vis he has placed no material to show that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not allowed to the assessee. Accordingly the ground taken by the assessee is rejected. 13. Ground No.7 is against the levy of interest u/s.234B and 234D of the Act. 14. At the time of hearing no supporting material was placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of the above ground. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the AO to allow consequential relief with regard to the levy of interest u/s.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
