REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VIVEK JAIN Appellant

V/S

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RE: V. BETHLEHEM HOSPITAL [REFERRED TO]
CAPE BRANDAY SYNDICATE V. INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS V. BLADNOCH DISTILLERY CO. LTD [REFERRED TO]
IRC V. DUKE OF WESTMINSTER [REFERRED TO]
A V FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P VS. MODI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O V R SV SR ARUNACHALAM CRETTAR VS. V MR P FIRM MUAR O R M O M A M CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O RM SP SV FIRM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA VS. SHAHZADA NAND AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORI DEVI VS. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT LIMITED JHANSI VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P [REFERRED TO]
CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY GUJARAT R RANGANAYAKI AMMAL VS. KANTILAL TRIKAMLAL:THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. MATHAI VERGHESE [REFERRED TO]
APHALI PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO LIMITED VS. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS PALGHAT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DEOKI NANDAN AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS VS. HARYANA STATE BOARD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ELPHANSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
GURUDEVDATTA VKSSS MARYADIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI WIRE INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED VS. S T O 1ST CIRCLE MATTANCHERRY [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. VINESH ANAND [REFERRED TO]
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. HARI PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHIDASAN UNIVESITY VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR HASAN KHAN VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAIJI VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFCER THANDLA [REFERRED TO]
UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
J P BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN VS. RAJIV ANAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. GOVIND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ASSOCIATED COMMERCIAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), has been preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in ITA No. 156/Hyd/06 dated 31.10.2006. The Tribunal had rejected the Appellant's contention that the annual let out value of the property at Flat No. 101, Marigold Apartments, Dwarakapuri Colony, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2002-03 was nil, and estimation of the actual rental value at Rs. 1,44,000/- was not justified.

(2.) The Appellant, a practicing advocate, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 on 6.8.2002 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,01,610/-. His case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Act. A notice dated 11.3.2005 was issued calling upon him to show cause why the annual value, in respect of the flat, should not be included in the computation of his income from house property. The Appellant, vide letter dated 23.3.2005, contended that, as per Section 23(1)(c) of the Act, the annual value of the flat was nil and, hence, he was not liable to tax.

(3.) The assessing authority, in his order of assessment dated 28.3.2005, held that Section 23(1)(c) would apply only when the property was let out; what could be seen from the computation of income was that this property was not let out during the accounting year; the question of allowing any deduction on account of vacancy would, therefore, not arise; in the earlier year also, i.e. the accounting year relevant to assessment year 2001-02, the property was let out only for a period of 15 days; and hence the annual value must be taken in terms of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The annual value was thus estimated at Rs. 1,44,000/-.

Click here to view full judgment.

VIVEK JAIN Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address