9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. The solitary issue urged for our adjudication in both the appeals is that Whether the taxing authorities are justified in estimating the annual value of the house property at a hypothetical figure disregarding the rent received by the Assessee, when it is more than the municipal ratable value. 3. The facts relating to the issue under consideration are stated in brief. The Assessee is a co-owner of the flat located at 12A. Lohtse Co-op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Ruia Park, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. The Assessee owns 50% share and other 50% share is held by his wife. In both the years the Assessee declared rent received from the property as his annual value. The Assessee had received a sum of Rs. 1,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal has considered the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts and the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operative portion of the order:- "The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani Vs. CWT 323 ITR 104(Bom) in the context of Rule 1BB to the Wealth tax Rules, which uses the same expression "the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected to let from year to year" as is found in Sec. 23(1)(a) of the Act, held that rateable value as determined by the Municipal authorities shall be the yardstick. The Learned counsel for the assessee relied on several other judicial pronouncements in support of this contentiion that the Municipal valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that rateable value, if correctly determined under the municipal laws can be taken as ALV u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act and in this regard the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Kaushish (supra) has been followed. It has been further observed that the rateable value is not binding on the AO, if the AO can show that the rateable value under municipal law does not represent the correct fair rent. In coming to the above conclusion, the Bench has followed the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Kashi Prasad Katarvka v. CIT, (101 ITR 810) (Pat.). We find that the Bombay High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court has held that the rateable value under the municipal law has to be adopted as annual value u/s 23(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we hold that the annual value (also referred to as municipal valuation/ratable value) adopted by the municipal authorities in respect of the property at Rs. 27,50,835 should be the determining factor for applying the provisions of S. 23(1)(a) of the Act. Since the rent received by the assessee was more than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the actual rent received should be the annual value of the property u/s.23(1)(b) of the Act. Notional interest on interest-free security deposit/rent received in advance should not be added to the same in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. We hold accordingly". 5. In the instant cases, we notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
