Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 24.03.2017. The assessee raised the following grounds:

Citation :
ITA No.1647/Bang/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1647/Bang/2017
Assessment Year: 2008-09

M/s. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd.,
No.7, Rest House Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
PAN NO : AAHCS 1313 C
APPELLANT 

Vs.

ACIT,
Circle – 12(3)
(presently – DCIT – 7(1)(2)),
Bangalore.
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CA
Respondent by : Shri. Elamurusu G, JCIT (DR)(ITAT)
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 24.03.2017. The assessee raised the following grounds:

1. That the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law.

2. That the total income computed and the total tax computed is hereby disputed.

3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the appellant's own case rendered for earlier year.

4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in overlooking the submissions and without appreciating the facts and law has summarily upheld the order of the AO.

5. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in treating the sum of Rs. 6,25,000/-received towards electricity deposit as rent and thereby taxing the same.

6. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in treating the entire amount of Rs. 1,93,75,823/- as rent and taxing the same under the head Income from House Property.

7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Service tax is the liability of the lessees but failed to appreciate that it is the responsibility of the appellant to collect and remit the same.

8. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not reducing the Service tax of Rs. 17,33,877/- from the total rent received.

9. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rents received were for lease of property and host of other services and was not rent simpliciter.

10.That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the Bescom and other charges amounting to Rs. 32,95,186/- under the head Income from House Property.

11.That the Learned Assessing officer / CIT(A) erred in not allowing the expenditure incurred by the appellant in providing power to the lessees.

12. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim for expenditure shown under the head Income from other sources.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 09 December 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 15
downloaded 10 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags