TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding departmental grievance, once we have held that income is to be assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ as above, on the basis of order of CIT(A) this issue is upheld. - ITA. Nos. 5256 & 5193/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2016 - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. By Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R. By Assessee : Shri S. Venkatraman, A.R. ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: These cross appeals have been filed by Revenue and assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, dated 25.03.2013 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. In ITA No.5256/Mum/2013, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following ground: 1. On the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectors, at their meeting held on 15th February, 2007, resolved that attempts be made to let out the property as a bare-shell without making any further renovation/furnishing. Assessee approached an estate agent for identifying potential tenants thereafter but the property was only let out in the subsequent financial year and hence no rent was received or receivable in respect of the said property. While filing its return of income, assessee computed the annual value of the said property under the head Income from House Property at Rs.Nil and claimed a deduction of interest paid on loan u/s.24 of the Act. Accordingly, a loss of ₹ 85,15,655/- was computed by assessee under the head Income from House Property and assessee claimed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een that the property was to be treated as income from rentals and the annual value of the property may be considered as nil. Therefore, these need to be allowed against 'Income from house property'. CIT(A) observed that assessee had itself stated that it is income from business and not income from house property. Without prejudice to the foregoing, even if the contention of assessee was accepted which was not acceptable, the property couldnot be said to be lettable as assessee had acquired the property only in the month of January, 2007 wherein only the Occupation Certificate was received. He did not agree to accept the contention of assessee that property was lettable from the date of acquiring occupation certificate, since after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. Same was dismissed by CIT(A). 5.2 Assessing Officer did not compute the loss under the head Income from House Property and did not allow the said loss to be carried forward u/s.71B of the Act. CIT(A) agreed with the assessee s contention that Assessing Officer ought to have allowed carry forward of loss under the head Income from House Property . Since assessee has no other income under any other head, consequently, the loss under the head Income from House Property qualifies u/s.71B of the Act to be carried forward to the following assessment year to be set off against the income under the same head. Accordingly, Assessing Officer was directed to allow the carry forward of loss to be capitalized and allowed as per the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
