TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted the claim of the assessee that the assessee leased out only 1/3 of the area in property in question, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in directing the AO to compute only letting value of 1/3 property in question. Accordingly, the appeal of the department is dismissed. - ITA No. 4825/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2018 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR Respondent by Sh.S.K.Tulsian, Adv. Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Adv. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 30.06.2014 for the AY 2010-11, challenging the order of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jects. However, the maintenance and electricity bills of the entire space of the property was paid by M/s Today Group, as noted above, who are using this space of M/s today Hotels Pvt. Ltd. just for the purpose of address of registered office, although no activities have been carried out by these companies. 4. The AO did not accept contention of the assessee that the assessee did not carry out any business activity in assessment year under appeal as it is difficult to believe that it would left vacant a prime location in Connaught Place, New Delhi. The assessee has given address office at 10, Todarmal Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi- 110001 and during the course of search of Today Group of cases on 26.11.2009, it was noticed that the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly annual value of the property could be chargeable to tax under the head income from house property except such portion of such property which the assessee may occupy for the purpose of any business and profession carried out on by him, profits whereof are chargeable to tax. It would not mean that income is actually taxed. Ld.CIT(A) found that the assessee company has leased out 1/3 of the area to M/s Today Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and retained 2/3 area for its own business purpose. The AO was accordingly directed to restrict the addition to 1/3 of the area which is let out by the assessee to M/s Today Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee re-iterated the submissions made before the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om house property and deduction u/s 24 of the Act have been allowed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the issue is covered by order of ITAT for AY 2011-12 as the AO accepted the claim of the assessee in AY 2011-12 2013-14, therefore, departmental appeal has no merits. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR moved application for adjournment in four cases including present one. However, considering the facts of the case as noted above, we do not find any justification to adjourn the matter on the request of the Ld. DR. Request for adjournment rejected. 8. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the order of the Tribunal and the assessment order for AY 2011-12 2013-14, it is clear that the claim of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
