JK Investors (Bombay) Ltd vs. ACIT - Itatonline.org

ITA Nos.7858 & 7851 of 2011 JK Investors (Bombay) Ltd Mumbaiincome finally determined". The AR submitted that even the directiongiven by the CIT(A) is on an entirely wrong interpretation of therelevant provision.34. We have considered the issue and we are in agreement withthe arguments of the AR that interest though mandatory, can becharged if only there is a shortfall on the installments of payment ofadvance tax calculated on the basis of tax due on returned incomeand does not involve the tax due on assessed income. We, therefore,set aside the direction of the CIT(A) and modifythe same by directing the AO to charge interest under section 234Cif at all, on any shortfall in the installments in each of the quartercalculated on the basis of tax due on returned income inaccordance with law. The ground is, therefore, allowed for statisticalpurpose.35. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partlyallowed.ITA no. 7851/Mum/201136. The only issue involved is holding the compensation receivedon amenities provided as income from other sources instead ofincome from house property, as claimed by the assessee. The factsand the conclusion, as found recorded in the order are:“(a) The appellant is owner of property at MahindraTowers (2 nd and 3 rd Floor). The appellant entered intoagreement with Raymond Limited to lease the premisesat a monthly lease rent of ` 41,06,080/- together with amonthly compensation of `10,26,520/- for use ofamenities and facilities. Copies of the agreements areenclosed along with this appeal and marked collectivelyas Annexure "A". During the previous year relevant toassessment year under appeal, the appellant received asum of ` 6,15,91,200/- as income from letting out of theaforesaid property. The appellant offered the same fortax under the head "Income from house property".However, the Assessing Officer treated the compensationPage 18 of 21http://www.itatonline.org