TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/11/2000 addressed to the assessee, copy thereof filed in the compilation before us. The assessee become a deemed owner· in accordance with provision of section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269UA(f)(i) of the Act - no mistake in the order of CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is the deemed owner of the premises u/s 27(iiib) of the Act and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.5965/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2016 - Shri G.S. Pannu, Accountant Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh ORDER Per G.S. Pannu, A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om a property owned by the assessee but it is in respect of a property which has been sub-let to ICICI Bank Ltd. Therefore, he has proceeded to tax the same as income from other sources . The Assessing Officer further noticed that though in assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal had upheld the plea of the assessee for assessing such income under the head income from house property but since the appeal of the Revenue was pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court , he proceeded to tax such receipt as income from other sources . The CIT(A) has also affirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee is a mere licensor of the property and, therefore, the income received by it from ICICI Bank Ltd. was taxable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter dated 24/11/2000 of M/s. Vrindavan Lal Goverdhan Lal is not genuine. The fact that the agreement for letting out the premises to ICICI Bank Ltd. is for a period of 15 years, clinches the issue in favour of the assessee as they become the deemed owner under the provision of section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA (f)(i) of the Act and accordingly is entitled to deduction as provided u/s 24(a) of the Act. The decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in 8 SOT 441 and Calcutta Tribunal in 89 ITD 199 covers the issue in this case in favour of the assessee and accordingly we hold that there is no mistake in the order of CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is the deemed owner of the premises u/s 27(iiib) of the Act and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee firm to create sub-tenancy with regard to the premises in question and assessee created the sub-tenancy in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd. for a period of 15 years on certain terms and conditions. The Tribunal has noted that such terms and conditions have been placed before them. In this background, the Tribunal held that assessee became a deemed owner on an application of section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA (f)(i) of the Act. On the contrary, reference made by the CIT(A) to the fact that assessee was a mere licensor of the property and, therefore, cannot be treated to be a deemed owner in terms of the section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA(f)(i)of the Act is a bald assertion, and is dehors any reference to the terms and conditions of the agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
