9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Inclusion of ALV of certain properties claimed by the assessee to be occupied for its own business purposes - In our considered opinion, section 22 of the Act itself excludes ALV of such properties of which the assessee is owner and has occupied for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him. Since the assessee has furnished necessary evidences which have been duly verified by the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1(a) is dismissed. ALV of properties where rent has been considered as business income - Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished assessment orders for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer has excluded the properties which have been given on rent for calculation of notional rental value. Following the findings given in Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT (A) correctly directed to exclude such properties. 5% increase per annum on ALV - CIT(A) deleted addition - It is a fact that for increase by 5%, the Assessing Officer has neither brought any comparable case on record nor there is any evidence to justify such increase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls by the assessee and the Revenue are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 09.06.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 and the ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 12.06.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Since common issues are involved in all these cross appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 5010/DEL/2017 [Assessment Year 2013-14] Assessee s appeal 3. Ground No. 1 relates to the Annual Letting Value [ALV] of unsold flats shown as stock in trade. 4. This issue is no more integra as the same has been decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ansal Housing and Leasing Finance 354 ITR 180. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 1.2 stand dismissed. 5. Ground No. 2 of assessee s appeal relates to the non-exclusion of ALV of spaces/flats under litigation/disputes admeasuring 7511 sq. ft in Jyoti Shikar Building. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer has included ALV in respect of 23 spaces/flats measuring 7511 sq ft in Jyot Shikar Building, Janakpuri which was completed 20 years back but was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using the decision given in Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the ALV of the said 12 properties. 18. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 19. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 20. In our considered opinion, section 22 of the Act itself excludes ALV of such properties of which the assessee is owner and has occupied for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him. Since the assessee has furnished necessary evidences which have been duly verified by the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1(a) is dismissed. 21. Ground No. 1(b) relates to ALV of properties where rent has been considered as business income. 22. Facts on record show that the assessee has shown certain spaces/units which are given on rent and has been declared under the Schedule Sales and other income of the accounts. Copy of such account was filed before the Assessing Officer. Since no findings have been given in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer, the issue was raised by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Bank Ltd 130 Taxmann.com 178 has held that where the assessee has sufficient own funds, it will be presumed that the investments are made from own funds available with the assessee. 39. As the assessee has own sufficient own funds, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 is accordingly dismissed. 40. Ground No. 3 relates to allowing claim of the assessee which was claimed for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). 41. Facts on record show that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 5,16,000/- being advance lease rent money. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that since it was not claimed in the original return of income, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to reduce the returned income. The Assessing Officer also did not entertain the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee has not filed any revised return of income. 42. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was claimed that the assessee has made lease payment to M/s Suzlon Gujarat Wind Park Ltd for a period of 20 years and the assessee has been given land on sub lease wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -ground No. 1 in ITA No. 5679/DEL/2017 of Revenue s appeal. For the reasons given therein, this ground is dismissed. 54. Ground No. 3 is identical to Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 5679/DEL/2017 [supra]. For the reasons given therein, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 55. Ground No. 4 relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 26,76,056/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of employee s contribution to PF. 56. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the employee s contribution of Rs. 26,76,056/- which was supposed to be deposited on 15.11.2013 has actually be deposited on 23.11.2013. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, made disallowance. 57. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the amount has been deposited before filing return of income and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alome Extrusions 319 ITR 366 squarely apply. 58. The ld. CIT (A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance. 59. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 60. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
