TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has filed its returns showing income earned only from renting out of the property and there is no other income of the assessee in the disputed year. The assessee, in the disputed year, has also claimed deduction on the same property, rented out, which is not permissible under the Act. The authorities below were justified in rejecting the second claim made by the appellant assessee under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, as only one deduction is permissible under the Income Tax Act. - Decided against the Assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 72 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - Bharati Sapru And Piyush Agrawal JJ. For the Appellant : Abhinav Mehrotra For the Respondent : Krishna Agarwal,Krishna Agarwal ORDER PIYU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter, by an order dated 09.09.2013, the case was transferred to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Sitapur. Thereafter, on 23.10.2013, notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued and on 03.01.2014, notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee. On 19.12.2014, the questionnaire was also issued and the same was duly served upon the assessee in accordance with law. The assessee submitted its reply and produced books of account for verification. On examination of the books of accounts, certain discrepancies were noticed. The assessee declared the income from house property amounting to ₹ 12,50,000/- and claimed deduction under section 24 of the Income Tax Act for a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on record all relevant materials. We have heard Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant assessee and Shri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent Department and perused the materials brought on record. The counsel of the appellant argued that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 24 of the Income Tax Act as well and the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the same. He further relied upon the Memorandum of Association of the Company and emphasized that the main object of the Company is not to earn income from renting its property. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Dadarkar Associates Vs. ACIT CC 46 (Civil Appeal Nos. 6455-6460 of 2017, dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court in Chennai Properties Investments Ltd. and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. would be of no avail. In Chennai Properties Investments Ltd. where one of us (Sikri, J.) was a part of the Bench found that the entire income of the appellant was through letting out of the two properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee .. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is also clear that if the income has been earned only from renting of the premises, then the same cannot be allowed to claim deduction under section 24 of the Income Tax Act. From the perusal of the record of the case in hand, it is crystal clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
