ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 847 of 2004 PODDAR PROJECTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 18th September, 2014. Ms. M.Bhargava Court : Since none appears on behalf of Revenue when matter is called on. Ms. Mamata Bhargava, learned advocate, who normally appears on behalf of Revenue, is requested to appear in this matter. learned Central Government advocate is directed to regularize her appointment. appeal was admitted on following questions : i) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought not to have held that surcharge on municipal tax was part of rent and/or annual value for purposes of section 23(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002 ? ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for determining annual value in accordance with provisions of section 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961, word rent appearing therein would encompass Surcharge on Municipal Tax in respect of property let out to tenant and used by him for commercial or non- residential purposes ? iii) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that surcharge on municipal taxes i.e. surcharge on 2 consolidated rate, as referred to in Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 collected and recovered by assessee, as owner of premises, from tenants or occupiers, is part of actual rent received by assessee within meaning of sub- clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently surcharge on Municipal Taxes amounting to Rs.8,75,178/- be included for purpose of determination of income under head Income from House Property ? It is submitted by Ms. Bhargava that issues are covered by judgment in assessee s own case in Poddar Projects Ltd. vs. CIT, Cal : 2011 Taxmann 493 in favour of Revenue. Since we find that questions are squarely covered by judgment of Poddar Projects Ltd. (supra), appeal is dismissed. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) km AR(CR) Poddar Projects Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-IV