9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the computation of house property is governed by self contained code and no other expenditure other than what is specified u/s 23 is allowable while computing the Annual Letting Value. 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction of Common Area Maintenance Charges of Rs. 11,36,069/-, while computing the Annual Letting Value ignoring the fact that the assessee himself had disallowed the proportionate expense and treated the same as income in Asst. Year 2011 -2012 and offered the same for taxation. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the amount of Rs. 81,59,061/- received from K Raheja Universal Construction Pvt. Ltd., as capital receipt and exempt it from tax, ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs. 81,59,061/- was compensation received by the assessee towards loss of rental income, which is a revenue receipt. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same through the present common order. 4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 2.1 to 2.3 of its order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 2.2 & 2.3 of its order and the same is reproduced below:- 2.2. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative of the appellant has made the following submissions:- "Deduction of Cam Charges and other charges from house øroperty income. a The Appellant has let out two properties. As far as agreement is concerned with MSCI services pvt.ltd, the license fee is inclusive of CAM (including Municipal Taxes) charges. In other words, CAM charges is payable by the Appellant. b. In the return, the Appellant has claimed CAM charges alongwith municipal taxes as deduction from the rent for computing the annual value of the premises let out. C. The basis of Annual letti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; of income only in terms of its provisions, would not be entitled to the impugned deductions, the annual value of its house property be assumed at the reduced' value, i.e., after deducting the impugned amounts (from the rental), being only in relation to the expenditure required to be necessarily incurred for the enjoyment/user of the relevant property and, therefore, can only be considered as having been included - at the said amount, i.e., at cost, by the two parties in the reckoning/determining of the same (rental)." h. The'Muribai Tribunal in case of Realty Finance & Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum) held that society charges paid by appellant in respect of its let out properties are allowable while computing annual value. This was followed in case of ITO vs. Farouk D. Vevaina (2009) 121 Ui 510 (Mum). i. The Gauhati' Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Bawari 19 1TJ 562 (Gau) held that where electricity charges payable by the tenants are borne* by the landlord by an agreement, such charges will have to be reduced from the actual rent received or receivable. j. The Delhi Tribunal in case of Neelam Cable Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (1997) 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me through the present common order. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 4 to 6 of its order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 3.4 of its order and the same is reproduced below:- 3.4. I have carefully considered 'the submissions made by the appellant and the impugned assessment order on this issue and also perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case also the applicable legal position. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the compensation has been-paid for probable loss of higher rental receipts to be received by letting the said unit to IMITES firm and therefore the compensation received by the appellant is definitely is of revenue nature. The Assessing Officer further opined that the loss on account of receiving of lesser rental income by letting out the said unit to an IT firm is clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Services to Bharti Axa Life Insurance Thus they breached the MOU. When the Appellant Mr.Yogen D Sanghavi wanted to let out his property i.e. Unit no. 302 for Financial Services, he was surprised to learn that it was not possible since M/s K Raheja Universal Pvt Ltd had already utilized the slot of Financial Services which belonged to him, because of which Mr. Sanghavi could let out his unit only for IT/ITES purpose, otherwise the status of IT park would have been lot. The matter was taken up with M/s K Raheja Universal Pvt Ltd and it was settled that they would compensate Mr.*Yogen D Sanghavi for a sum of Rs. 81.59 Lacs for the change of usage of the premises, that had happened. Since the above receipt is a capital receipt, and was not taxable, it was directly credited to capital account of the appellant which is found to be correct. The Bombay High Court decision relied on by the appellant in the case of CIT' vsc Abhasbhoy A Dehgamwalla supports the case of the appellant. By signing the agreement, the appelrant has accepted an impairment or injury to Its right of 'more beneficial enjoyment' of his own property. The amount of .81,59,061/- received by.the appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
