9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the said heads only and not in business head - HELD THAT:- Considering the findings arrived at by the CIT (Appeals) which is upheld by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the assessee was entitled to get the deduction under Section 24, when the rent income is already taxed under the head income from house property and therefore no substantial question of law arises on that count. Disallowance of stamp duty - CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition following the earlier A.Y. 2009-10 and the Tribunal also upheld the same - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that no question of law arises, so far as question no.(c) is concerned. The appeal stands dismissed qua the same question. Accrual of income - Reimbursement of Service Tax received f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction u/s 24 of the Act thereby resulted into double deduction? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned ITAT is justified in deleting the disallowance of stamp duty and expenses share capital without considering that these are capital expenses? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned ITAT has erred in deleting the addition in respect of reimbursement of Service Tax of Rs. 2,35,16,841/- received from GAIL as per Arbitration award on the ground that assessee has offered the said income to tax in AY 2016-17 though it has already been accrued during the financial year 2009-10? 3. The Respondent-Assessee Company filed return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 declaring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the appellant-Revenue submitted that in Tax Appeal No.870 of 2014 arising out of order passed by the Tribunal in the earlier year was admitted by this Court, however, the said appeal was disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. 8. Considering the above submissions, question no.(a) is admitted. 9. With regard to the question no. (b) which pertains to the question relating to the expenses of the building given on rent, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure under Section 24 on the ground that in absence of specific details and to cover up the disallowance on account of the property given on rent, the standard deduction under Section 24 was disallowed. 10. Being aggrieved the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is made in this year also. Penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) is separately being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 14. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition following the earlier A.Y. 2009-10 and the Tribunal also upheld the same in view of the order passed by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10, without there being any distinguishing facts available on record. 15. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises, so far as question no.(c) is concerned. The appeal stands dismissed qua the same question. 16. So far as question no.(d) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the reimbursement of the service tax received from GAIL was offered to tax in the subsequent year and therefore no question of law can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
