9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for self-occupation to the extent of Rs. 1,800, the taxable income from this property was worked out at Rs. 4,500. After giving further deduction in respect of statutory repairs of 1/6th the ITO computed the income from S.O. property at Rs. 4,500 as against the disclosed income of Rs. 1,321 only. 2. Before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal, it was contended, on behalf of the appellant, that the finding of the ITO determining the property income, at Rs. 4,500 is not correct. According to the ld counsel for the assessee, the Porbandar Municipality for the purpose of levy of house tax had determined the annual letting value of this property at Rs. 4,200 only. For the asst. yr. 1975-76 also, the ITO had estimated annual letting valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 1977-78. Fixed Deposits with nationalised banks with more than 5 years duration could easily fetch a clear return of 10 per cent For Standard rent purposes, what will have to be seen is the "net yield", that is gross rents, less all out goings of the landlord. As long as this net yield is not in excess of the return on the said long term bank deposits or gild edged securities, it could not be considered as an unfair determination thereof. In the present case, with reference to the cost of investment of Rs. 1,41,740, the ITO's figure of Rs. 7,200 is almost 5 per cent of the total investment. Such a measure of yield from the said property cannot, therefore, be termed to be an unfair determination of the "annual value" with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 7,200 in the year of account. 4. The ld Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld Commissioner (Appeals). According to him, in earlier years neither the AAC nor the Tribunal considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs Delhi Municipal Committee, Mrs. Sheila Kaushish vs CIT (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 311; (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC) and Amolak Ram Khosla vs CIT (1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC). According to these decisions, in some cases annual letting value of self occupied property would be limited to the standard rent which may be fixed either by the Rent Controller or by the assessing authorities. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. When the assessing authority arrives at its own figure of standard rent by applying the principles laid down in the Rent Control Act, it does not, in any way, usurp the function of the Controller, because it does not fix the standard rent which would be binding on the landlord and the tenant, which can be done only by the Controller under the Act, but it merely arrives at its own estimate of standard rent for the purpose of determining the annual value of the building. That is a perfectly legitimate function within the scope of the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the matter should go back to the ITO. He shall determine the value of the self-occupied property in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
