JAY LAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS Vs. I.T.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the assessee for the Asstt. Year 2006 -2007 is directed against the order of the CIT(A).

(2.) THE ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee's appeal are as under:

(3.) THE learned DR has opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. He submitted that there is no evidence brought on record on behalf of the assessee to show that it has provided some furniture and fixtures to "VCPL", and in fact the lease agreement between the assessee -firm and "VCPL" shows that there was no provision for any services provided by the assessee to the lessee. He submitted that providing electrical panel is part of the building premises let out and no separate rent is charged for the same. Likewise, generator space is also in this premises only, and is not a service or separate asset. He submitted that no facility like air -condition plant or common amenities like lift, watchmen etc. were ever provided by the assessee -firm to "VCPL". He relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).