5. The qualified representative of the department (D.R.) relies on the evaluator`s observations, which relied on Desatogen`s observations, while finalizing the initial assessment, and the notator did not consider the issue of the good head under which rental income must be assessed. Therefore, the reopening of the section 147 assessment of the Act is valid because there is no change of opinion. In support of his argument, the learned representative of the department relied on the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 296 ITR 661 (Guj.). 2. The central issue, which is considered in the above appeals, with the exception of the 2009-10 assessment exercise in ITA 5944/mum/2012, relates to the question of whether income from the conduct of leave and licence fees should be considered as income from real estate, as claimed by the notator, or as income from transactions held by the notator (AO). That is why we propose to look at the above topic first. Given that the facts related to the above question are more or less common in all vocations, for reasons of brevity, we will discuss the state of administration of ITA 7011/Mum./2014 for the 2007-08 evaluation year. 13. The qualified R.A., which strongly supported the DECISION of the learned CIT (A), argued that the AO had not accepted the evaluator`s alleged inference in the event of a false assessment of the facts.

The A.R. who learned drew our attention to the letter of sanction of 25.03.2004 of the bank HDFC, which stated that the loan of Rs.15 crores had been sanctioned for the construction of a house. He stated that the expert had taken out an additional loan of 7 Rs.7 Crores at 31.03.2006 and that the outstanding loan of the notator was 15 kronor. He submitted that the appraiser had entered into a loan agreement with HDFC Bank on 01.07.2006, under which the remaining loan payable by the notator was converted into a new loan. To prove this, the A.R. learned drew our attention to various clauses in the loan agreement, a copy of which appears on page 79 of the paper book. The qualified R.A. filed, in reality the expert did not receive a new loan, but the old current loan used by the appraiser for construction purposes was qualified as a new loan. Thus, the learned CIT (A) is entitled to admit the evaluator`s claim. Without prejudice to the above submission, the A.R.

formed submitted that the interest payable on a fee loan to repay the original loan for the construction/purchase of real estate was also eligible as a deduction under CBDT Circular No.