TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore this matter to the file for AO for fresh examination of the matter and decide the same in accordance with law after being providing necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. Nos.2883/Mum/2011, I.T.A. Nos.2965/Mum/2011, I.T.A. Nos.2887 and 2888/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2016 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Assessee : Shri Anuj Kishnadwala For The Revenue : Shri K B Shukla ORDER Per RAJESH KUMAR, Accountant Member : These are four appeals filed by the respective parties. These appeals are directed against the separate orders dated 25.1.2011 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-40, Mumbai. Since issue involved in all these appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. I.T.A. Nos.2965/Mum/2011 The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are as under : 1.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Annual Value has offere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of notional interest of ₹ 8,43,500/- from AY 2002-03 to AY 2007-08 and addition of ₹ 50,43,500/- in AY 2008-09 is directed to be deleted. The AO will also reduce the permissible deduction u/s 24(a) by I taking the revised annual value of property. This ground of appeal is, accordingly allowed Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, the ld.AR submitted before us a copy of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.2966/Mum/2011 (2007-08) dated 12.10.2015 and contended that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and present assessment year also stands covered by the above mentioned decision of the Tribunal. The ld. DR could not controvert the contention of the ld.AR and also could not file any material contrary to the submissions of the ld.AR. 4. We have heard both the parties on the issue and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below and decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee. We find from the order of the Tribunal, the issue raised by the assessee stands covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectfully following the said judicial pronouncement, we modify the impugned order of the Ld CIT (A) on this issue and direct the AO to accept the income from house property declared by the assessee adopting the municipal ratable value as annual letting value of its property. Ground no.1 of the assessee s appeal is accordingly allowed whereas the solitary ground raised in the Revenue s appeals is dismissed. Respectfully, following the findings of the coordinate Bench, Revenue s appeal is dismissed and assessee s appeal is allowed. I 6. Thus, it is a decided issue that AO is prevented in this case and property from disturbing the ALV qua the (i) considering the notional interest on deposit and (ii) not considering the Municipal Ratable value-based-ALV of the property. In this year, AO has not garnered any incriminating material against the assessee s claim relating to ALV of the property in question. After considering the above submissions of the assessee as well as the arguments of the Ld DR for the Revenue, who essentially argued for setting aside the appeal to the file of the AO, we find the need for dismissing the arguments of the Ld DR. ............. 22. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act the same has been taxed under the head deemed income in the hands of the BIEPL on substantive basis . The AO also made addition on protective basis in the hands of the assessee under section 22(2)(e) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under : 8.5 I have carefully considered the issue. For A.Y. 2006-07, no specific submissions/reply is filed by M/s.BIEL during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings in this regard. In view of this, addition made by the AO is hereby confirmed in the hands of the appellant for A.Y. 2006-07. 8.6 So far as 'the' other years are concerned, the appellant's contention has been that the money transacted is in respect of purchase of property and, therefore, it do. partake the character of loan or deposit and section 2(22)(e) is not attracted. The ld. AR claimed that Maduvan Project, the development could not proceed further due to court litigations. In this case, copy of letter showing flat booked was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
