Case Law Details
Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that assessee in fact, has let-out the joint property to the tenant company and has received advance as well as security deposit of the aforesaid amounts. The authorities below rejected the claim of assessee because the amount of advance rent and security deposit is not mentioned in the rent agreement. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also referred to the return filed by assessee to show that rent have been offered for taxation and all transactions are through banking channel. Therefore, merely advance rent and security deposit is not mentioned in the rent agreement would not prove that assessee has not received the advance rent and security deposit from the tenant and let-out the property in question. Since the amount is paid as regards the tenanted premises, therefore, it is in normal ordinary transaction of letting out of property. Therefore, it could not be treated as loan or advance so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi, Dated 30.05.2014, for the A.Y. 2011-2012 on the following grounds :
1. “That under the facts and circumstances, there is no legality and justification for making addition of Rs.41,97,267/- u/s.2(22)(e) for the following amounts:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
