TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Upon perusal of the agreements, it could be gathered that the payment of municipal taxes and other outgoings was the liability of the assessee. Any increase was also to be borne by the assessee. The licensee was required to pay fixed monthly lump sum payment to the assessee as license fees irrespective of assessee s outgoings. Therefore, to say that the actual rent received by the assessee was net of society maintenance charges , would not be correct as per the terms of the agreement entered into by the assessee. We find that as per the provisions of Section 23(1)(b), annual value shall be deemed to be the actual rent received or receivable by the assessee. The proviso provides for deduction of municipal taxes levied by any local a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM For the Assessee : Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. AR For the Revenue : Ms. Smita Verma Ld. Sr. DR ORDER PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. In this appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 10, Mumbai, [in short referred to as CIT(A) ] dated 25/10/2018 which has held that the assessee is not eligible to claim society maintenance charges from rental income. 2. The Ld. AR advanced argument in support of assessee s claim and relied upon various decisions of this Tribunal, a copy of which has been placed on record. It was urged that gross rent received by the assessee included society maintenance charges which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 253), the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High court in Aravali Engineers P. Ltd. (200 Taxman 81) and the decision of Chandigarh Bench in case of Piccadilly Hotels Private Ltd. (97 TTJ 411). The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Sharmila Tagore (93 TTJ 483) was held to be not applicable since this decision did not consider the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in H.G.Gupta Sons. Resultantly, the action of Ld. AO was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon perusal of clause-9 of Leave License agreement dated 15/11/2004 entered into by the assessee with one of the Licensee, we find the assessee as a licensor was liable to pay municipal taxes and any outgoings and any further increase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which owner could not realize. We find that the statutory provisions are quite clear and provide for deduction of only specified items i.e. taxes paid to local authority and the amount of rent which could not be realized by the assessee, from the expression actual rent received or receivable . No other deduction is permissible. Allowing the other deduction would amount to distortion of the statutory provisions and such a view could not be countenanced. To accept the plea that rent which actually goes into the hands of the assessee is only to be considered, would enable the assessee to claim any expenditure from rent actually received or receivable since the same would ultimately reduce the amount which actually goes into the hands of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1101 61,036 61,920 1102 46,000 Nil 1202 61,036 61,920 Godown Nil 82,188 Total 1,68,072/- 2,06,028/- Therefore, we find that CIT(A) has erred in allowing two deductions to the extent of ₹ 1,22,956/- ₹ 61,920/- separately on account of maintenance charges and municipal taxes respectively which pertained to Flat No. 1101 whereas in fact the total amount pertaining to Flat No. 1101 was, in fact, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
