Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi ... vs R. Dalmia on 5 November, 1980

Jagdish Chander Malhotra vs Income Tax Officer. (Also Ito V. Jagdish ... on 24 September, 1997

6. Let us first examine the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which according to the learned Senior Departmental Representative squarely supports the Revenue's contention. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Dalmia (supra), has held that the right acquired on agreement to sell is not a proprietary right and hence it is not a capital asset. Consequently, receipts attributable to such a right is not assessable to capital gain. This judgment relates to the rights acquired by the assessee under the agreement to sell, dt. 21st May, 1955, and 31st August, 1959.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Acit - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly ... on 9 May, 2018

The reliance of the assessee in the case of CIT v. R. Dalmia(supra) also shall be no avail as in this case the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has already held that there may be cases in which the annual value fixed under the municipal law may be unacceptable to the income-tax authorities for good reasons. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court held that they have not laid down any general principle that the income-tax authorities must adopt the municipal value as being correct. Normally the value should be accepted but if there is an under-valuation , it is certainly open to the Income-tax Officer to fix the value on his own on the basis of expected reasonable rent.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vs Ranka Construction (P.) Ltd. on 19 September, 1994

Viewed from this angle also we hold that the assessee-company cannot be held to be the owner of the impugned flats and, therefore, the charge under Section 22 fails. Should in a reference or otherwise, our view is held to be not sustainable in law, we hold that even if the assessee is construed as the owner of the impugned flats, the annual letting value cannot exceed the municipal valuation as has been held by the Madras High Court in M.R. Alagappan's case (supra) and the Delhi High Court in Jr. Dalmia's case (supra) 163 ITR 517. If at all anything is assessable in the case of the assessee, the computation should start with the adoption of the annual letting value at Rs. 1,50,885, subject to the deductions admissible under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ito 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs Cyrus Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai on 26 September, 2018

The reliance of the assessee in the case of CIT v. R. Dalmia(supra) also shall be no avail as in this case the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has already held that there may be cases in which the annual value fixed under the municipal law may be unacceptable to the income-tax authorities for good reasons. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court held that they have not laid down any general principle that the income-tax authorities must adopt the municipal value as being correct. Normally the value should be accepted but if there is an under-valuation, it is certainly open to the Income-tax Officer to fix the value on his own on the basis of expected reasonable rent.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next