9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant submits that under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant s case the flats at Vikas Anand, Khar are self occupied property and therefore self occupancy allowance ought to have been granted in respect of said flats. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a reputed play back singer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted from the statement of total income that assessee had offered income from house property at ₹ 10511/- in respect of seven flats owned by her at various places in Mumbai and Pune as deemed let out property u/s 22 to 27 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The details of the cost of the flats as stated by the A.O. are as under:- (i) F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Vikas Anand is self occupied property. It was submitted that due to addition on account of 8% of cost of acquisition, the assessee wished to treat Vikas Anand property as self occupied property as it was more beneficial to her. However, the ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments advanced by the assessee. According to him, the assessee herself while filing return of income has treated Maryland property as self occupied property. Therefore, she cannot change her stand to treat Vikas Anand property as self occupied. He accordingly upheld the action of the A.O. in considering the Maryland property as self occupied. So far as the ALV of the property is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) following the order for A.Y. 2001-02 in assessee s case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf occupied. The assessee in subsequent years is free to exercise her option. He accordingly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the provisions of Section 23(4) reads as under:- Section 23(4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one house:- ( a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in respect of one of such houses, which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf; ( b) the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house in respect of which the assessee has exercised an option und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial to the assessee. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to consider the Vikas Anand property as self occupied property as against flat at Maryland property. Ground No. 1 by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 7. Grounds of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss on account of difference in foreign exchange of ₹ 24,68,715/- by treating the loss as notional loss and considering the same as not allowable when the appellant is following cash system of accounting. Your appellant submits that under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant s case the foreign exchange loss of ₹ 24,68,715/- is allowable as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that in the preceding year, when there was profit on account of difference in valuation of foreign exchange, the same was offered for tax and was accepted by the Department. Therefore, the Department cannot take a contrary view. The submissions made by the assessee before the A.O. were reiterated before the ld. CIT(A). Various decisions were also cited before him. 8.3 However, the ld. CIT(A) was also not convinced with the arguments advanced before him and upheld the action of the A.O. While doing so, he noted that the assessee is maintaining cash method of accounting and, therefore, other than the monies actually utilized during the year by way of expenditure or converted into Indian rupees, the remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned assessment year by treating the same as loss or bad debt. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the assessee tries to equate the same with trading loss which under no circumstances can be allowed. In the preceding A.Y., the assessee herself has offered the notional income on account of difference in foreign exchange. However, that cannot override the provisions of law and entitle the assessee to claim the loss on account of difference in foreign exchange as an allowable expenditure. 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. In our opinion, consistency cannot override the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
