TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) V, Chennai dated 27.07.2011 passed in ITA No. 73/10-11 in assessment year 2008-09. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shaji P. Jacob, Addl. CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 266 ITR 685). 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the jurisdictional Bench of the I TAT, Chennai against the appellant. However, the appellant has already preferred an appeal against the appellant. However, the appellant has already preferred an appeal against the said order of the ITAT. 6. The i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AR of the assessee, we find that during the year under consideration, the assessee had earned rental income, which was treated as business income. The Assessing Officer treated the income from sub-leasing of properties as income from house property. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer relying on the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in I.T.A. No. 103/Mds/2005 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
