Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 1 July, 1996

Raman K. Sawhney vs Chairperson, Ndmc And Anr. on 7 October, 2002

20. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 also refers to the same judgment and more specifically para 5.1 above where reference has been made to the judgment in Sir Shobha Singh's case (supra), where the Court has noticed that there are cases where huge amounts as interest free security are taken as a device to realise interest instead of Realizing higher rent. Learned Counsel for the respondent however, does not seriously dispute the fact that abare reading of the assessment order shows that there is no finding recorded that the rate of rent was artificially reduced and that the security deposit and advance rent of more than 6 months have been taken only to compensate the lower rent. That being the position, the assessment order cannot be sustained since the Assessing Authority has to arrive at a finding to this effect before the interest can be included. Merely because security deposit is taken or advance rent is taken of more than six months cannot ipso facto imply that the same is to compensate the reduced rent and the same can be added only once the Assessing Authority comes to a finding of artificial reduction of rent by making appropriate comparisons.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Iii vs Moni Kumar Subba on 16 August, 2010

"5.1Incidentally, we may refer to yet another Division Bench decision of this Court in Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ndmc, 1996 4 Ad Del 56. The D.B. has observed (vide para 24) :- "If any property forms subject matter of contractual rent then the rate of rent agreed upon between the parties and which was being actually paid by the tenant and received by the landlord can safely be accepted as determining factor of rateable value unless there be material available to hold the rate of rent having been influenced or depressed by reason of extraneous consideration such as fraud, collusion, relationship, expectation of some other benefit etc." The court has noticed some of the instances which might have contributed to depression of rent. To wit -- (1) The landlord has collected huge amount as "Pagri" and is charging nominal rent. (3) The landlord collects huge amounts as interest-free security and lets out the premises at nominal rent with permission to sub-let. The tenant, after taking over possession, lets out the premises at exorbitant rent. (4) The premises are let out to a sister concern at low rent with permission to sub-let, and the sister concern lets out the premises for huge amounts. In the operative part of the order one of the directions made by the Court while directing Assessing Authority to make the assessment afresh is :- Apart from ITA No. 803/2007, ITA No.499/2008 & ITA No.1113/2008 Page 15 of 17 such other information which the assessing authority may be inclined to collect and such enquiry as the Assessing Authority may deem fit to hold, in particular the assessing authority shall enquire :- xxxxxxxxx (ii) whether there is any reason to hold the actual rate of rent applicable between the landlord and the tenant either inflated or depressed by reason of extraneous considerations which would justify the assessing authority discarding such rate of rent for the purpose of finding out the rate of rent at which the premises may be reasonably expected to let.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 December, 1996

(12) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of assessment Annexure P- 10 is set aside. The Assessing Authority is directed to draw up the assessment afresh in accordance with the following directions : (A)separate assessment shall be made for the period anterior to 24.10.94 and for the period subsequent to 24.10.94; (b) for the period anterior to the date 24.10.94, the value of air-conditioning equipment shall be excluded from consideration for assessing the R.V. So far as the interest on security is concerned, decision to include or not to include the same in the rent shall be taken after collecting material and recording finding consistently with the principles laid down and in the cases of Mcd Vs. S.D.S. Bali & Anr. (supra) and Sir Sobha singh & Sons (supra). (c) the petitioner shall be bound to make available all such information and documents as may be called for by the assessing authority and if the petitioner fails in making the information and/or the documents available to the assessing authority, the assessing authority shall be at liberty to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ganga Ram Hospital Trust vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 June, 2001

26. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation relied on a Division Bench decision in Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Limited v. N.D.M.C., . This was a case under the Punjab Municipal Act. The said Act contains a specific bar to institution of civil suits to challenge levy and assessment of tax. Therefore, this judgment cannot be an authority for purposes of present case which pertains to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which does not contain any specific bar to institution of civil suits to challenge levy and assessment of tax.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 26 - A Kumar - Full Document

Shri Raman K. Sawhney vs Chairperson, Ndmc And Anr. on 7 October, 2002

20. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 also refers to the same judgment and more specifically para 5.1 above where reference has been made to the judgment in Sir Sobha Singh's case (supra) where the court has noticed that there are cases where huge amounts as interest free security are taken as a device to realise interest instead of Realizing higher rent. Learned counsel for the respondent however, does not seriously dispute the fact that a bare reading of the assessment order shows that there is no finding recorded that the rate of rent was artificially reduced and that the security deposit and advance rent of more than 6 months have been taken only to compensate the lower rent. That being the position, the assessment order cannot be sustained since the assessing authority has to arrive at a finding to this effect before the interest can be included. Merely because security deposit is taken or advance rent is taken of more than six months cannot ipso facto imply that the same is to compensate the reduced rent and the same can be added only once the assessing authority comes to a finding of artificial reduction of rent by making appropriate comparisons.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

The State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 25 April, 2003

16. The Division Bench of this Court in Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council, 62 (1996) DLT99 (DB) = 1996 IV AD (Delhi) 56 also held that it is only premises which are actually occupied by tenant and where actual rent is paid or payable exceeding Rs. 3,500/- would be outside the purview of the Rent Act and, thus, the principles of standard rent would not govern the rateable value.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Sant Ram Saigal And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 16 July, 2003

In such a situation, thus, the principles laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh's case (Supra), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor's case (Supra) and as interpreted and incorporated in Delhi Paints And Chemicals's case (Supra) would once again become applicable to the property in question and the rateable value would be liable to be determined on the basis of the principles contained in Section 6 of the Rent Act. This would equally apply whether the letting out is by the owner or by the predecessor in interest of the owner."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - S K Kaul - Full Document

M/S. Star Estate Management Pvt. Ltd vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. on 1 March, 2000

The term "rent" although has not been defined in the Punjab Municipal Act but the word "tax" under Section 61(1) would also include duty assessed or fee in terms of explanation thereto. The rent/licence fee collected by the petitioner towards providing car parking facilities and services would, in my considered opinion, come within the ambit of the aforesaid expression `rent'. This interpretation of the word 'rent' for the purpose of deciding the presnt case is also in consonance with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sir Sobha Singh & Sons P. Ltd. Vs. NDMC reported in 1996 Vol.IV A.D. 56 wherein it was held that the term rent must be assigned a wider meaning under the NDMC Act. 1994 since the same has not been defined.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next