DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. ALTIUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5646/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0330 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A NO.5646/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) DCIT-10(1), MUMBAI PAN : AAFFK0340N VS M/ S ALTITUS MANAGMENT ADVISORS P LTD, METROPOLITAN, 5TH FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 51 PAN : AAFCA2213B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV RESPONDENT BY SHRI NIRAJ SHETH DATE OF HEARING 27-07-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16-08-2017 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 21, MUMBAI DATED 18-06-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENTING OF PROPERTY, FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 30-09-2010 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS.87,39,287. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES U/S 1 43(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT 2 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME T O TIME AND FURNISHED RELEVANT DETAILS, AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED U/S 143(3) DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,13,47,483 INTER AL IA MAKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL A ND ESTIMATION OF NOTIONAL RENT ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED ELABORAT E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUED THAT THE AO WAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTERES T PAID ON LOAN BORROWED FROM TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD EVEN THO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS B ORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT INSOFAR AS ESTIMATION OF NOTIONAL RENT ON SECURITY DEPOSIT, TH E AO WAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THT THE ASSESSEES ACTUAL RE NT RECEIVED FROM THE TENANTS IS MORE THAN THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OR STANDA RD RENT WHICH THE PROPERTY CAN FETCH IN THE OPEN MARKET. THE AO CALCULATED RE NT ON THE PRETEXT THAT ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASASESSEE IS LESS THAN THE MUN ICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OR STANDARD RENT OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE STANDARD RENT RECEIVABLE FROM THE PROPERTY. AS REGARDS ADDITION TOWARDS RENT RECEIVA BLE, THE ASSESSEE HAS 3 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD PROVIDED A SUM OF RS.42,267 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TOWARDS RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE BY FOLLOWING THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD-9 ISSU ED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA (ICAI, HEREINAFTER) WHEREAS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME AS PART OF RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. 4. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO RELYING UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS INCLU DING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF J.K. INVE STORS (BOMBAY) LTD VS CIT (2001) 248 ITR 723 (BOM) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL F ROM TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD, ESTIMATION OF NOTIONAL RENT ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ADDITION OF RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED CAPITAL FROM TCG URB AN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHICH I S ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO DISALLOW ED INTEREST IN SPITE OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM O F AGREEMENT BETWEEN LENDER AND THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LENDER, WHICH CATEGORICALLY PROVES THAT THE LOAN WAS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE AO NEITHER BROUGHT ON ANY COGENT MAT ERIAL NOR GAVE ANY FINDING AS TO NON UTILISATION OF FUNDS BORROWED FROM TCG UR BAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS 4 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD LTD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. AC CORDINGLY THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST. INSOFAR AS ADDITION TOWARDS NOTIONAL RENT ON INTEREST FREE SEC URITY DEPOSIT, THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) FOR WHICH NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT NEE D NOT BE ADDED IF THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE MUNI CIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OR STANDARD RENT RECEIVABLE FROM THE PROPERTY. IN THI S CASE,ASSESSEES ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS MORE THAN THE STANDARD RENT, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING NOTIONAL RENT ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF FIZZ D RINKS VS DCIT REPORTED IN (2005) 95 ITR 429 (DEL), THE FACTS OF WHICH IS DIST INGUISHABLE FROM THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE HA S LET OUT THE PROPERTY FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.1 AND RECEIVED INTEREST FREE SEC URITY DEPOSIT OF RS.1,62,36,000. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ITAT CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE DETERMINED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) WHICH IS STANDARD RENT OR MUNICIPAL RATEAB LE VALUE OR ACTUAL RENT RECEIVABLE, WHICHEVER IS MORE. IN THIS CASE, ACTUA L RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH MORE THAN THE STANDARD RENT OR MUN ICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND HENCE, THE AO WAS ERRED IN ESTIMAT ING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS. AS REGARDS ADDITION TOWARD S RENT ACCRUED, BUT NOT DUE, 5 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE BY FOLLOWING AS-9 ISSUED BY ICAI, HOWEVER, SUCH RENT IS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. ACCORDIN GLY, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS RENT ACCRUED, BUT NOT DUE. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT ADDITION OF RS.1,48,34,926 TOWARDS INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CA PITAL FROM TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD. THE FACTS WHICH RELAT E TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY FROM ICICI BANK LTD VIDE INDENTURE OF CONVEYANCE DATED 28-09-2005 FOR A CONS IDERATION OF RS.76,84,56,000. THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED LOAN FR OM M/S UCO BANK AND M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE LOAN BORROWED FROM M/S UCO BANK HAS BEEN DIRECTLY PAID T O ICICI BANK LTD VIDE DEMAND DRAFT DT 27-09-2005. THE LOAN BORROWED FROM M/AS TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD VIDE AGREEMENT DT 22-09 -2005 WAS USED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE AO DISALLOWED INTEREST P AID TO M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD FOR THE REASON THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE LOAN IS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPANY BUT NOT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE LOAN BORROWED FROM M/S TCG URBAN IN FRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD 6 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD WAS USED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE LOAN HAS BEEN BORROWED PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN UTILISED FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO ICICI BANK LTD. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASO N THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES STATES THAT THE LOAN IS GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS, THE AO CAN NOT DISALLOW INTEREST PAID ON LOAN BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IGNORING ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH PROVES THAT T HE SAID LOAN WAS BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. WE FURTHER OBSERVE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCT URE HOLDINGS LTD AND ASSESSEE AND ALSO INTEREST CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/ S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD WHICH CONFIRMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B ORROWED LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. WE FURTHER OBSERV E THAT THE ASSESSEES MAIN ACTIVITY IS RENTING OUT PROPERTIES. ON VERIFICATIO N OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, T HE ASSESSEES ASSETS REPRESENT INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY LOAN BORROWED FROM UCO BANK AND M/S TCG URBAN IN FRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD. THE ASSESSEES MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM LEASE RENTALS FROM THE SAID PROPERTIES. EXCEPT LETTING OUT OF PROPERTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT 7 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD ANY OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LOAN BORROWED FROM M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LTD IS FOR THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS IGNORING ALL EVIDENCES WHICH P ROVES THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED NEXUS BETWEEN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND BORROWED CAPITAL AND HENCE RIGHTLY ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION TOWARDS INTEREST PAID ON LOAN U/S 24(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT PROVISIONS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS M ADE BY THE AO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE U PHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION I S DETERMINATION OF ANUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV, HEREINAFTER). THE AO HAS DETERMINED ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY ESTIMATING NOTIONAL INTERE ST ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED HUGE INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT ON WHICH REASONABLE INTEREST NEEDS TO BE ESTIMATED WHICH FORMS PART OF ALV OF THE PROPERTY. THE AO HAS TAKE N SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF FIZZ DRINKS VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ALV HAS TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH SECTION 23(1)(B) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL 8 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD YEAR IS MORE THAN THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OR S TANDARD RENT OF THE PROPERTY AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B), THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED WHICH IS A SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MI GHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR THE ACTUAL REN T RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY. THE ASSESSE E FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS MORE THAN THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. T HEREFORE, THE AO WAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FRE E DEPOSIT BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH WHICH IS RENDERED TOTA LLY UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE CASE BEF ORE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT ITS PREMISES FOR A MONTHLY REN T OF RS.1 AND RECEIVED HUGE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER SECTION 23(1)(B) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT NOTIONAL IN TEREST ON AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT ITS PROPERTY FOR A RENTAL OF RS.50 PER SQ.FT. PER MONTH WHICH IS MORE THAN THE M UNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND MERITS IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REA SON THAT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) AS PER 9 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD WHICH THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. IN THIS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS MORE THAN THE STANDARD RENT OR MUNICIPAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS J.K . INVESTORS (BOM) LTD (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAIR RENT, THEN THE NOTIONAL INTEREST CANNOT FORM P ART OF THE ACTUAL RENT AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 23(1)(B) OF THE ACT. IN TH IS CASE, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAIR RENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT ITS PROPERTY FOR A MONTHLY REN T OF RAS.50 PER SQ.FT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A O WAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI ITAT CITED SUPRA WHICH WAS TOTALLY RENDERED UNDER DIFFER ENT SET OF FACTS. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS J.K. INVESTORS (BOM) LTD (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NOTIONAL INTER EST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVAB LE FROM THE PROPERTY, IF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS MORE THAN THE FAIR RENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE AO. WE DO 10 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND RAISED BY THE REV ENUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION I S ADDITION TOWARDS RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE IMP UGNED ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION FOR RS.42,267 TOWARDS RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE BY FOLLOWING AS-19 ISSUED BY ICAI. THE AO MADE ADDITION TOWARDS RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG AND HENCE RENT RECEIVABLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DE TERMINATION OF ALV OF THE PROPERTY. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IS RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVA BLE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY LET OUT, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE. IN THIS CASE, RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE IS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION FOR PROPORTIONATE REN T OF PART OF THE MONTH BY FOLLOWING THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD WHICH IS DUE IN T HE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS ERRED IN INCLUDING RENT ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ALV OF THE PROPERTY. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE OR DER OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REJE CT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE 11 ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 16 TH AUGUST, 2017 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI