Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: magicbricks in Ivp Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 6(1)(2), Mumbai on 1 November, 2018Matching Fragments
1.3 the CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating the fact that the actual rent had exceeded the municipal Rataeble value and as such could not be treated as Annual Letting Value of the said flat.
1.4 the CIT(A) further erred in adopting the fair rent based on the trend shown in the website "Magicbricks.com".
1.5 The appellant prays that it be held that the actual rent of ₹ 1,20,000/- be taken as ALV for the said Flat.
2.3 The CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating the fact that the annual rent had exceeded the municipal Rataeble value and as such could not be treated as Annual Letting Value of the said flat.
2.4 The CIT(A) further erred in adopting the fair rent based on the trend shown in the website of "Magicbricks.com."
2.5 The appellant prays that it be held that the actual rent of ₹ 1,20,000/- be taken as ALV for the said Flat."
4. According to AO, the ALV declared by the assessee of flat No. 12, Carmel Apartment, Nepeansea Road and 13, Orion, Bhulabhai Desai Road at ₹ 1.20 lacs for each. According to AO, in view of the rates available on one To Let site i.e. Magicbricks.com Trend, the rent of residential flat no.12 , Carmal Apartments is ₹ 86,605 per month and total comes to ₹ 10,39,262/-. Similarly for flat no. 13, Orion Bhulabhai Desai Road the rent as per Magicbricks.com Trend is ₹ 99,018 per month and total comes to ₹ 11,88,223/-. Accordingly the AO assessed the ALV of these properties as under:-
Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
6. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstance of the case. I have gone through the assessment order and noticed that the AO has simply adopted the value disclosed in one internet site of Magicbricks.com Trend. The AO has not carried out any other inquiry and when this was put to the learned Sr. DR Shri. BS Bist, he could not support the assessment order with any evidence which is relied on by the AO. I find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tip Top Typography (2014) 368 ITR 330(Bom), wherein the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Del) was considered and find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Tip Top Typography (supra) held as under:-