-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No. 618 of 2003 Essar Properties Ltd. ..Appellant vs. DCIT Special Range 1 ..Respondent Mr.P.J.Pardiwala with Ms.Aasifa Khan i/b Mr.S.R.Mody for appellant. Mr. Asokan for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 16th September,2008 16th September,2008 16th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. After perusing the original assessment order, the appellate order passed by CIT(A) and the order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that under sec.23(1) of the Income Tax Act the annual value has to be determined at the higher of the two figures viz. (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year and (b) the actual rent received or receivable. 3. In the present case none of the authorities below have -2- determined the figure at (a) or have proceeded on the basis that annual value has to be taken at Rs.9000/- p.m. There is no dispute that the amount referred to in (b) above can only be Rs.9000/- per month. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Assessing Officer is directed to determine the annual value by ascertaining the Municipal Rateable Value of the property in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer shall determine the same and pass appropriate assessment order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. 5. The above order is by consent of both the parties. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)