9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed owing to presence of abundant corroborative evidences which is not show in the instant case. Having gone through the entire factum of the case, we hereby hold that the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained as the assessee has discharged the primary onus casted upon them and the revenue has not brought on record to treat the amounts u/ s 68 . Disallowance on account of architect fees - Before us, it was submitted that the architect fee has been paid owing to rendering of services regularly on monthly basis for project management consultation to the management of the company. The Architects are engaged to manage the property of the assessee and are paid for monthly charges as professional fee - DR argued that the assessee is receiving only rental income against which it is claiming standard deduction and interest on borrowings - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is receiving rental income against which interest and others statutory deduction are claimed and hence no other deduction on account of maintenance charge or any other nomenclature is not an allowable deduction. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. Income from house property - dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had shown to receive a loan of ₹ 50 ,00,000 /- as an advance for sale of land at the village Shilatne, Maral, Lonawala, from M/ s Kakade Stone Crushers. The assessee has submitted a confirmation in this regard. Notice u/ s 133(6 ) was issued by the AO on 25.11 .2013, for which the recipient failed to comply. The AO treated the amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 . The ld. CIT ( A) upheld the action of the AO on the grounds that the assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the depositor. 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the ld. AR submitted that an amount of ₹ 50 ,00,000 /- received as advance from M/s Kakade Stone Crusher. Argued that the assessee has placed on record complete address and PAN of M/s Kakade Stone Crusher. The ₹ 50 ,00,000 /- was received by account payee cheque from the said party on 27.01.2011 and refunded the said amount on 23.07.2011 by crossed account payee cheque. All bank entries are appearing in the assessee s bank account and in books of accounts. It was argued that the assessee has discharged its responsibility to disclose, all the particulars of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction is through banking channels or account payee instrument; surrounding and corroborative factual details are equally important. 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. We find that the advance of ₹ 50 ,00,000 /- has been received by the assessee on 27.01.2011 and repaid on 23.07.2011. The return for the relevant assessment year was filed on 28 .09.2011 and the notice u/s 143(3 ) was issued on 10.09.2012 which primarily shows that the transactions have been completed before filing of the return. The assessee from their side reproduced the relevant details and documents to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan party and the transactions. Since, the amount has already been paid, the assessee could no more exert any influence on the loan party. At the same time, the assessee can be said to have discharged his primary onus with regard to the advance. There was no information with the AO before or during the assessment proceedings to point out any suspicion with regard to the deposit and its sources either in the form of cash deposits or any other enquiries conducted. The addition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding and computation of ALV @ 8% of the total of the land and building. 18. At the outset, both the parties agreed that the matter stands covered by the order dated 22.06 .2018 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 6177 /Del/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 in the assessee s own case. For the sake of brevity and ready reference, the relevant part of the said order are reproduced hereunder: Para 17 on the issue of interest 17. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any justification to sustain the addition. The interest paid on borrowed funds used for the acquisition and construction of the property is an allowable deduction under section 24(b) of the I.T. Act. The authorities below have disallowed 50% of the interest because no bifurcation of the funds used for land and building and other assets have been- provided by the assessee. The assessee has, however, given complete details before the Ld. CIT(A) to show how much own funds are available to assessee and how much amounts have been borrowed from the Bank and other institutions. The assessee claimed that the borrowings as on 31.03 .2010 were only ₹ 25,13 ,58,904 /-, on which, above interest h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h shall be taken as annual letting value and not the standard rent. In the present case, the assessee explained all the facts, before A. O. with regard to rent received and that the property was let out earlier and in the case of lessee CVT, it is pleaded before ITAT, Mumbai Bench that the rent has been gradually increased from time to time. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue Department. Therefore, the A.O. accepted the claim of assessee of receiving fair and reasonable rent of ₹ 1.80 crores in assessment year under appeal. The Ld. CIT( A) was however, influenced by the fact that the assessee company and the lessee is controlled by Shri Vineet Nayyar and his family members and investment in building. Therefore, he has considered that assessee has received a low rent. However, it is an extraneous consideration, which has no bearing on the issue of determination of annual letting value of the property. The Ld. CIT( A) did not undertake any necessary exercise to compute annual letting value of the assessee as per above guidelines. No comparable case have been brought by him on record. Ld. CIT( A) simply rejected the claim of the assessee for applying 8% of the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
