9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on) qualifies as “own” occupation for business purpose. - Decided is answered in favour of the revenue. - ITA No. 2005/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2018 - SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : SH. Satyen Sethi, Adv, Arta Tarana Panda, Adv Gargi Sethia, Adv For The Respondent : Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 05/02/2013 passed by CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the addition of notional Annual Letting Value of ₹ 5,19,11,202/- on closing stock of flats / spaces by following the Hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in which various relevant facts were not brought out before their lordships and not considered by them. 1.2 That without prejudice to the Ground No. 1.1 above, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Apex Court which has been admitted and is pending for decision. 2. That without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the decision rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther as relates to income from house property, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 5,19,11,202/- to the income of the assessee under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Annual Letting Value (ALV) in respect of vacant commercial/self-occupied assets. In respect of disallowance of expenses on completed projects, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 10,68,61,285/- and addition of ₹ 4,68,000/- in respect of amortised cost of land in respect of wind power project wherein observed that it cannot be denied that this lease is for enduring period and it is a capital expenditure. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submits that as relates to ground in respect of addition of notional annual letting value-Rs.5,19,11,202/-, as far as, legal position is cornered, the issue is covered against the assessee by judgment of Delhi High court in assessee s own case in CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance Leasing Co. Ld. 92013) 354 ITR 180. The Ld. AR further submits that before the CIT(A), the assessee besides raising legal issue (grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(Appeals) to look into the aspects raised in Ground Nos. 6.3 to 6.36 before him in form 35. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the additional ground raised by the Appellant is disposed off accordingly. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. The CIT(A) has taken into consideration decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance Leasing Co. Ltd. 354 ITR 180 regarding addition of notional Annual Letting Value of ₹ 5,19,11,202/- on closing stock of flats / spaces. The Hon ble High Court held as under: 13. In the present case, the assessee is engaged in building activities. It argues that flats are held as part of its inventory of stock in trade, and are not let out. The further argument is that unlike in the other instances, where such builders let out flats, here there is no letting out and that deemed income - which is the basis for assessment under the ALV method, should not be attributed. This Court is of the opinion that the argument, though attractive, cannot be accepted. As repeatedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, this question is answered in favour of the revenue, and against the assessee. Thus, as on today the issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, Ground No. 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. 9. As relates to Ground No. 3, this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee s own case (M/s. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA Nos. 5784 5663/DEL/2010 and ITA No. 5310 5345/DEL/2012 dated 17.08.2017). The Tribunal held as under: 46.3 We find that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of ₹ 2,46,411/- being 1/20th of advance rent/lease money in respect of the lease which was for a period of 18.5 years in respect of land for Wing Power Project in Gujarat. The same has been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The contention of the assessee remained that since this land was for a limited period of lease and no separate rent was being paid, the lump sum payment made was amortized in the accounts over the period of lease and was allowable as a Revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer did not agree and held that since the lease was for enduring period, it was an expenditure of capital nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
