Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
Deepak Kapoor, New Delhi vs Assessee on 25 January, 2011 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Satya Co. Ltd. on 2 August, 1993

In the case of CIT vs. Satya Co. Ltd. (1994) 75 Taxman 193 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that when the annual value is decided under s. 23(1)(a) of the Act with reference to the fair rent, then the said fair rent takes into consideration everything. In terms of the aforesaid provisions of s. 23(4) of the Act, the assessee has been given the option to choose one of the properties as self-occupied and in this case, the assessee chose Greater Kailash Enclave-I property as self-occupied while the AO observed that address of Malviya Nagar property having been given in the return, the assessee had already exercised the option provided in s. 23(4) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) concurred with the AO , ignoring the plea of the assessee that address of Greater Kailash property was mentioned in the bank as also in the electricity bills. We are of the opinion that once the law provides option to the assessee to choose any one property mentioned in sub-section (2) of sec. 23 of the Act as self occupied, no restrictions can be put on such option and the AO or the ld. CIT(A) cannot thrust upon their choice on the assessee. Only requirement is that property should be such as is referred to in s.23(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee pleaded before the AO that his Palam Vihar property is let out while GK Enclave-1 is self occupied and the Malviya Nagar is co-owned with his brother, who is occupying that property. As pointed out by the ld. DR, in the computation of income placed in paper book on page 2 , even 9 I T no. 2149 (Del) of 2011 Palam Vihar property is stated to be partly let out and partly self occupied. We find that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) recorded any findings as to which are the properties in the instant case which fall within the purview of s. 23(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, we consider it fair and appropriate to vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the directions to identify the properties in the instant case which fall within the purview of s. 23(2) of the Act and allow the assessee option mentioned in s.23(4) of the Act to choose any one of these as self occupied property.Thereafter, the assessment may be completed in accordance with law after determining ALV of the said property in the light of various judicial pronouncements, including those referred to above . The assessee is directed to place all the relevant facts before the AO and co-operate in expeditious completion of assessment. The AO is free to undertake any independent enquires, if found necessary . With these observations, ground nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal are disposed of. Since the issues are restored to the file of the AO, the ground no.3 relating to levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act does not survive for our adjudication at this stage.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Uday Kaushish (Minor By His Mother And ... vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Delhi-I ... on 25 November, 1981

569 and Mrs. Sheila Kaushish vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. DR while supporting the order of the AO submitted that since the assessee himself mentioned address of the Malviya Nagar in his return of income, the said property alone could be treated as self-occupied property in terms of provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. To a query by the Bench, the ld. AR submitted that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level of the AO since complete facts were not available before the AO at the time of completion of assessment.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 108 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Iii vs Moni Kumar Subba on 16 August, 2010

5. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid finding of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee while carrying us through the impugned order and inviting our attention to provisions of section 23 of the Act, contended that the assessee had the right to exercise his option to choose one of the property as self- occupied property in terms of provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. Since the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, exercised the option, treating Greater Kailash Enclave-I property as self-occupied, the AO could not thrust upon the assessee Malviya Nagar property as self-occupied. The ld. AR further submitted that in the event Greater Kailash Enclave-I property is considered as self-occupied, then the annual letting value of the property at Malviya Nagar would have to be determined in the light of decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba [2011] 333 ITR 38 (Del.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1