Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1350 - ITAT MUMBAILease rent income - Correct head on income - income from house property OR business income - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003 (1) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT), wherein held that when main intention of letting out the property or any portion thereof is to earn rental income, the income is to be assessed as income from house property and where the intention is to exploit the immovable property by way of complex commercial activities, the income should be assessee as income from business. Applying this proposition to the facts of the instant case, we found that the assessee has let out the property to earn the rental income. Accordingly, no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for treating the lease income as income from house property Deduction u/s 80IB(10) on stilt parking denied - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's own case infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) as held that if some part of the flat is used for commercial purpose, the correct character of housing project is not vitiated, Assessing Officer has not brought on record that which part of expenditure claimed to have been incurred for parking is bogus. Hence, in view of the above said arguments, case laws and submissions of the appellant alone, the Assessing Officer could be directed to allow deduction to the appellant u/s. 80IB(10) on sale proceeds of stilt parking. Addition of suppressed value of closing stock - AO has made addition in the valuation of closing stock by taking indirect expenditure as a part of cost of construction like interest expenses, depreciation, brokerage for lease etc. - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- AO has wrongly added expenses of previous year to the value of closing stock without finding fault in assessee’s method of valuation, which was consistently followed by it. The AO has wrongly included indirect cost of project which is not going to form part of value of work in progress. While computing value of closing stock the AO has not pointed out any particular expenses, which should have charged to closing stock and not added by the assessee to the closing stock. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A) resulting into deletion of addition on account of valuation of closing stock. Addition on account of allocation of common expenditure to Poisar Project and Sakinaka ‘D’ project - HELD THAT:- As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are pari materia to the facts and circumstances as considered and decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, which has been elaborately referred by the CIT(A) in his impugned order Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the addition made on account of allocation of common expenditure. - Decided against revenue
|