Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1155 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of annual letting value - (ALV) of the property taken at 8.5% on the total investments for the purpose of determination from house property u/s. 22 by CIT(A) - Held that:- Perusal of the order of CIT(A) shows that annual value for the property in question has been determined by BBMP at ₹ 29,722 for the relevant financial year. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri P. Balakrishnan v. CIT, ITRC No.59/1982 dated 26.2.1982 has taken the view that in the absence of any other details, the ALV fixed by the Corporation is the yardstick for determination of ALV u/s. 23 of the Act. If that yardstick is applied, then the actual rent received by the assessee would be much greater than the ALV determined by the BBMP. The CIT(A), has however determined the ALV u/s. 22/23 of the Act on the basis of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. The course adopted by the CIT(A) is favourable to the Revenue, but the assessee has not chosen to challenge the same. In the light of law as declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in view of the fact that the CIT(A) has determined the ALV at a much higher figure than what is contemplated by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in view of the fact that the assessee has not challenged the said determination of ALV by the CIT(A), we are of the view that the order of CIT(A) calls for no interference and should be confirmed - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of interest on borrowings made - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- The findings of the CIT(A) clearly show that assessee had borrowed loans for the purpose of acquiring the property. There is no material on record brought out by the Revenue to dislodge the findings of CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee Deemed dividend addition u/s. 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Since the Assessee in the present case is not a shareholder in the lender company, we are of the view that loan or advance to a non-shareholder cannot be taxed as Deemed Dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder - Decided in favour of assessee
|