TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d neither taken any property on lease nor purchased as is clear from tenancy agreement and deed of assignment which relates to the years other than the year in question. We also note that the addition in the current year was on protective basis and the substantive addition was made in the block assessment which was stated to be barred by limitation. We find merit in the arguments of ld AR that that the property taken on tenancy in the earlier year was subsequently purchased with the prior permission of the departments and the certificate u/s 269UL(3) of the Act is placed at page no 28 of the paper book. In the lights of all these facts the addition as made by the AO is just a notional and hypothetical which lacks any basis and there is noth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. 3. The issue raised in the first ground by the revenue is against the CIT(A) holding that for the purpose of calculation of income u/s 80RR of the Act , the indirect expenses relatable to the foreign income be calculated by taking the number of days the assessee spent abroad as against the proportion which the foreign receipts has to the total turnover by the AO whereas the second ground is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- made by the AO on account of on money for acquiring the tenancy rights of heritage bunglow. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 29.10.1997 declaring an income of ₹ 1,15,84,220/- along with audit report u/s 44AB of the Act. The residential pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the appeal by following the appeal order for the AY 1995-96 and 1996-97 and directed the AO to calculate the disallowance by taking the number of days the assessee stayed abroad to total number of days. 5.2. The ld AR at the outset pointed out that the case of the assessee was covered in his favour by a decision of the tribunal by own case in the ITA No 6008/Mum/2006 Assessment Year 2003-04 vide order dated 21.10.2008. the ld counsel submitted before us that the assessee was abroad during the year for 17 days in all and prayed for 15% of the expenses be taken as relating to earning of foreign income for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80RR.The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO. 5.3. We have considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that 15% of the expenses are reasonable and be attributed to earning foreign income from outside India. The AO is directed to compute deduction u/s 80RR of the Act accordingly. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed with the above direction. 6. During the course of scrutiny proceedings the AO observed that the assessee had acquired a heritage bunglow at Bandra (W) on tenancy basis of permanent nature by paying a deposit of 4,00,00,000/- Cr and monthly rental of ₹ 5000/- with absolute authority to further lease out the property and other rights as incorporated in para 35(2)(a) (b) of the assessment order. The said property consisted of constructed area of 5500 Sq. Fts with free hold land measuring 2500 per sq fts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghtly and prayed that order of CIT(A) be set aside by upholding the order of AO. Per Contra Ld AR for the assessee argued that the date of the tenancy agreement was 01.03.1996 was and did not relate to the AY 1997-98. The deed of assignment which was made on 25.08.2001 after obtaining the due permission from the Income Tax Department u/s 269UL(3) of the Act also did not pertain to the year under consideration a copy of which is placed at page 28 of the paper book of the assessee. The ld counsel drew our attention to the various clauses in the said deed of assignment including the consideration for purchase of ₹ 13.32 Cr which is placed at page no 9 to 36 of the paper book. The Ld authorized representative for the assessee Shri Hero Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
