2018 (5) TMI 1269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e seen that the entire issue is in the realm of appreciation of materials on record. CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the rent was not excessive. The application under section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act therefore would be ruled out. - Decided in favour of assessee.
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr Manish Bhatt For Mrs Mauna M Bhatt(174) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.09.2017 raising following questions for our consideration: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the exemption u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustified in allowing investment in fixed assets of ₹ 13,51,02,167/- without appreciating the fact that once the provisions of section 13(3) is applicable the benefit of section 11 and 12 can be allowed further?" 2. The multiple questions relate to different disallowances made for the benefit under section 11 with the aid of section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The principal issue however concerns the rent paid by the assessee to the trustees or to the HUF where the karta was the trustee of the respondent-trust. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that payment of such rent would fall foul of section 13(1)(c) of the Act and resultantly, in view of sub-section (3) of section 13, income of the trust would not qualify for exemptio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ores and the rent had been valued as per the prevailing rate fixed for the purpose of stamp duty. The assessee also pointed out that if 10% fair return on the investment was considered, the rent would come to ₹ 3.60 crores per annum as against which, rent of ₹ 1.98 crores was paid. The CIT (Appeals) was also influenced by the fact that the lease had a locking period of 30 years. Primarily on such grounds, the CIT (Appeal) was prompted to reverse the view of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal confirmed the view. Thereupon, the appeal has been filed. 4. It can be seen that the entire issue is in the realm of appreciation of materials on record. CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the rent was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X