Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, New Delhi vs P.N. Sikand on 1 April, 1977

Young Indian, New Delhi vs Acit(E), New Delhi on 31 March, 2022

182. As discussed above, the nature of the property being commercial, situated in a highly commercial area of Delhi, the DVO has rightly applied the multiplying factor '3' to take into consideration these factors. In the absence of any effective restrictive clause, the cases relied upon by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable and the plea deserves to be rejected and we do accordingly. The judgment relied upon by the appellant on CIT v. P.N. Sikand (supra) is not applicable on facts as here it is not a transfer of the property to a different owner albeit AJL continued to be owner and value is to be seen as benefit arising to YI as discussed above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 192 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. on 30 April, 1990

The provisions of Chapter XX-A are penal in nature and power under this Chapter to acquire immovable property is bound to guard against tax evasion. In order to justify the action, the necessary preliminary facts have to be established. A property cannot be valued without taking into account the preemptive stipulation attached to it or the provisions of the statue which are applicable to it. It cannot be said that said property has no market value but the valuation has to be assessed at by taking into account those restrictions. This is what has been held by the Honorable Supreme Court in to case of P. N. Sikand (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh (supra). The submissions made in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant are only to invite our attention to relevant facts and provisions of law, what would enable any body to determine the fair market value. It could not be equated to an additional ground or a matter not considered by the authority below. The very object for adjudication before the IAC (Acquisition) is determination of fair market value. We, therefore, reject the objections raised on behalf of the Revenue in this regard.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Committee vs Little Theatre Group And Anr. on 9 April, 1980

(12) In the present case we are not concerned with valuing the leasehold interest. According to section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act it is the market price of the land which has to be valued. The market price of the land, on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision', as also on the basis of the two Division Bench authorities referred to above, can be arrived at on the basis of the hypothetical sale of the land and by deducting there from Lesser's share of the unearned increase as representing the value of the burden contained in clause (14) of the lease-deed in question. It is, of course, to be kept in view that even in the case of hypothetical sale the restrictions which are contained in the lease-deed cannot, be lost sight of. For example the lease-deed itself contemplates the purpose for which the land can be used. In arriving at the hypothetical value or sale price such restrictions will have to be kept in view in order to arrive at the said value. These restrictions are attached to the land and every hypothetical purchaser would also be bound by it. In our view, therefore, for the purpose of section 6 the market price of the land would be the price which it would fetch in a hypothetical sale, keeping all the restrictions in the lease-deed in view, and by deducting there from the share of unearned increase which in fact belongs to the Lesser. The basis is as to what the seller will get and not what the buyer will pay as the price of the land.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Bhogilal H. Patel on 12 July, 1977

8. He also urged that any factor or aspect which will have the effect of depressing the value of any particular asset or which will dissuade a purchase from purchasing that asset in open market would be a relevant factor for the purpose of arriving at the proper valuation of the asset, and in support of this argument reliance was placed by him on certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. P. N. Sikand [1977] 107 ITR 922.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Dr. Balbir Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi And Ors on 12 December, 1984

These are the principles on which the rateable value of different categories of properties is liable to be assessed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. The same principles would a fortiorari apply also in relation to assessment of rateable value under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Since there are a number of writ petitions and appeals before us and they involve different fact situations we do not think it would be convenient to dispose them of finally by one single Judgment We would therefore direct that these writ petitions and appeals shall be placed on Board on some convenient date so that they can be disposed of in the light of the principles laid down in this Judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 195 - A P Sen - Full Document

Aims vs Commissioner on 2 August, 2011

In the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. P.N.Sikand, reported in [1970] 107 ITR 922 [SC], the question arose as to how the assessee's leasehold interest in a plot of land is to be valued. Clause 13 of the lease deed had provided that if the lessee transfers his leasehold interest, the lessor will be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase, that is, the difference between the premium already paid and current market value of the land at the time of the transfer. The Supreme Court held that the said covenant ran with the land and it would bind whosoever was the holder of the leasehold interest for the time being and that the said covenant which is in the nature of a burden on the leasehold interest had the effect of depressing the value which the leasehold interest would fetch if it was free from the burden or disadvantage attached to the leasehold interest and that when the leasehold interest for the land had to be valued, the burden or disadvantage attached to the leasehold interest has to be duly discounted in determination of the price which the leasehold interest would fetch.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document
1   2 Next