9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee on the basis of which it has come to the conclusion that it is the NDMC, which is the owner of the premises and remains to be the owner of the premises in question . In view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the assessee s own case on the similar issue, the present appeal is also covered in favour of the assessee. - Decided against revenue. - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order dated 29/09/2017 passed by CIT(A)-2, New Delhi for Assessment Years 2013-14 2014-15 respectively. 2. The grounds of appeal are as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company. It has different entrance and other infrastructural services such as lifts, stairs and parking slots etc. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee company had sub licensed offices and apartment in this building to various parties. The sub-license is given to various parties for a period of 9 years and 11 months which is renewed on the request of sub-licensee. The assessee company is not charging any rent, lease, or license fee from these parties. It had received interest free security deposits in the year of original sub licensed period to which the assessee company showing as unsecured loan in its balance sheet. The assessee was show caused as to why income from house property in respect of West Tower be not compute and adde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that on being confronted on these issues of non-disclosure of rental income, the Assessing Officer has attracted provision of Section 22 and estimated the annual let-out value of the property and computed the rental income. This issue of addition of rental income is common for AY 2001-02 onward in assessee s own case wherein the CIT (A), Tribunal (ITAT) and Jurisdictional High Court decided the issue in favour of assessee. However, department has not accepted the decision of above authority and filed SLP before the apex Court on merit of the case challenging the addition deleted by the appellate authority. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that in this case non-charging of rental income on the part of the assessee in respect of West Tower ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id sections on admitted facts on record, but did not accept the aforesaid pleading. After considering other submissions of the appellant, which were raised before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on this ground. In this scenario, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the This time, before the Tribunal, the assessee succeeded in its attempt to demonstrate that die assessee could not be liable to pay any such tax fixing letting value on notional basis when, in fact, no such amount of rent/license fee was received by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the license agreement entered into between the NDMC and the assessee on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
