9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmination of ALV. Considering the facts which have not been disputed and the above provision of law, we find that in the light of the judicial precedent cited namely ACIT, Delhi vs Prabha Sanghi paI [2013 (1) TMI 18 - ITAT DELHI]; Kamal Mishra vs ITO, Ward 31(2) [2007 (8) TMI 484 - ITAT DELHI] and DLF Office Developers v ACIT, Delhi [2008 (4) TMI 530 - ITAT DELHI] and Prem Sudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT [2007 (5) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI] and noting that no contrary view has been cited by the Revenue despite more than ample opportunity, we find that the appeal of the assessee has to be allowed. - I.T.A. No.-1100/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2016 - SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjournment was granted. 3. Accordingly, the appeal again came up for hearing. The Ld.AR relying upon the synopsis filed submitted that the material facts are that the assessee owns the following two residential houses:- i). DLF Chattarpur, Delhi which till A.Y.2007-08 was let out and during the year under assessment was lying vacant with an intention to let out. ii). The second house at Kasauli (Himachal Pradesh) was under self occupation being used for vacation purposes. 3.1. It was also submitted that the assessee since her marriage in 1979 including the year under consideration has been living with her family members in 17, Birbal Road, New Delhi which is the official address for income tax purposes owned jointly by her hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly relying upon section 23(1)(c), it was submitted that the ALV should be taken as NIL as against ₹ 8 lacs as confirmed by the CIT(A). Reliance was placed upon ACIT, Delhi vs Prabha Sanghi para 10, 13 [2013] (1) TMI 18; Kamal Mishra vs ITO, Ward 31(2) [2008] 19 SOT 251 (Delhi); and DLF Office Developers v ACIT, Delhi [2008] 23 SOT 19 (DELHI) and Prem Sudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 17 SOT 293 (Mum.). 4. The Ld. Sr. DR, Mr. Sonbhadra relied upon the impugned order. No contrary decision in support of the Revenue was cited. Nor any distinction on facts from the decisions cited by the Ld.AR in support of assessee s case was attempted. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) erred in rejecting the claim on the specious reasoning that the provisions could be misused. Section 23(1)(c) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2002. For ready-reference, the same is reproduced hereunder:- 23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) Where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable; or (c) Where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
