9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The appeal of the Revenue in the case of Amrish Ranbir Maker, (i. E. ITA No.7340/Mum/2011) is taken as the lead case. This appeal is directed against the impugned appellate order dated 10/08/2011 passed by CIT(A)-41, Mumbai pertaining to the assessment year 2008- 09, with reference to the assessment order dated 16/11/2010, passed in terms of section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act'). 3. Briefly put the relevant facts are that assessee is owning 3/4th share in Flat No.151/152 at Maker Tower 'L' , Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005, which was rented out to one M/s. Robo India Finance Pvt. Ltd. for an yearly rent of Rs. 1,80,000/-. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much as the action of the Assessing Officer was in violation of the provisions of section 23(1) of the Act. The assessee pointed out that as per provisions of section 23(1) of the Act, for the purposes of determination of Annual Value, the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year or actual rent received, whichever is higher is to be considered. The assessee pointed out that the annual ratable value determined by the local Municipal Corporation was Rs. 25,477/-, which was lower than the actual rent received and; therefore, the income declared by the assessee based on the Annual Value equivalent to the actual rent received was quite justified. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case one Shri Manish Ranbir Maker vide ITA No.7341/Mum/2011 & ITA No.4405/Mum/2012 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 order dated 30/8/2013 to point out that CIT(A) made no mistake in upholding the Annual Value of the property as returned by the assessee. Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the case Shri Manish Ranbir Maker (supra) also, the property was located in the same building as that of the assessee and in that case also the Assessing Officer had relied on the rent derived by Mr. Puneet R. Gupta. It was pointed out that the Tribunal considered the circumstances in which Mr. Puneet R. Gupta was earning rent of Rs. 3.00 lacs per month and fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding as that of the assessee. This very comparable relied upon by the Assessing Officer has considered by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Manish Ranbir Maker (supra) for the assessment year 2008-09, which is also the year under consideration before us. The Tribunal in its order dated 30/08/2013(supra) noted that in the case of Mr. Puneet R. Gupta, the property was let out by way of a leave and licence agreement on 11/5/2007 and prior to that the property was fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- only as per an agreement dated 25/2/2004. The Tribunal considered that such a rental arrangement could not be compared with other rental arrangements which are being carried forward from the past years. In our considered opinion, the parity of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
