9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to notice issued u/s. 142(1) wherein the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to explain only the large deduction claimed u/s. 57 of the Act. Even the assessee has replied complete queries regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 57 of the Act and specifically it is a simplicater case of limited scrutiny assessment. As urged by the ld. Counsel that this issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi, [ 2020 (10) TMI 425 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] .On this short premise, the revision order will go. Accordingly, we quash the revision order passed by PCIT and allow the appeal of assessee. - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Manjunatha.G, Accountant Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.w.sections 143(3A) and 143 (3B) of the Act. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show cause notice on 8.3.2023 u/s. 263 of the Act for revising assessment framed vide order dated 10.03.2021. In this show notice, ld. PCIT raised the issue that assessee has separately shown the maintenance collected amounting to ₹41,67,528/- from the tenants and the same has been disclosed under the head income from other sources and deducted expenses of ₹98,17,815/- and thereby claimed loss of ₹56,50,287/-. The ld. PCIT also noticed that TDS with respect to rent and services charges were deducted u/s. 194IB of the Act and therefore the amount received as service/maintenance charges should have been claimed as rent received and should have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the commercial property known as Menon Eternity at No.165, St. Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. 3. The whole property mentioned above (which is a commercial property) consists of basement, ground floor plus 10 floors, built by M/s Lancor Holdings Ltd. There were various tenants earlier in respect of each floor, like BNP Paribas, Cognizant Technologies, Fichtner Consulting Engineers (India) Private Ltd., etc The property has got parking facility for vehicles belonging to the tenants and their clients in the basement, ground floor and first floor. 4. The building has 400 KV power supply and pest control services for common areas, Security services, both physical securities and electronic surveillance systems, centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se property or under the head income from other sources. 2. In case, such maintenance charges collected by the assessee are assessed as income from other sources whether the expenses claimed by the assessee are allowable u/s 57 . The ld. PCIT on the first issue directed the Assessing Officer has under by holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue:- The Assessing Officer has failed to call for and examine the various clauses of the rental agreement and nature of services being provided by the landlords, to decide the issue. Though the decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'C' Bench, Chennai, in the assessee's own case for the AY 2016-17, is in favour of assessee on this issue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order and it is also clear that it was limited scrutiny assessment as recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer as under:- The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- Sl. No. Issues 1 Deductions from Income from Other Sources . We note that the ld. Assessing Officer had raised specific queries regarding deduction claimed u/s. 57 of the Act which reads as under:- 1. Furnish computation of income for the relevant A.Y. 2018-19 2. Provide details of Income(s) from other sources alongwith supporting documents. 3. Provide details of deduction claimed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s getting time barred, assessing officer took upon himself the role of a valuation officer under Section 50(C)(2) and found that the guideline value was not actual fair market value of the property and the actual consideration paid was the fair market value and therefore, he did not choose to make any addition under Section 50(C) of the Act. 18. The PCIT, has not dealt with this specific objection, but, would fault the assessing officer for not invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) merely on the ground that the market value was higher. As point out earlier, the guideline value is only an indicator and that will always not represent the fair market value of the property and therefore, the invocation of the power under Section 263 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
