Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Krishna Oberoi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 June, 2002

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Air Canada [Alongwith Ita Nos. 1341 To ... on 28 March, 2003

6. The learned Departmental Representative in support of his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Krishna Oberoi v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 257 ITR 105 (AP) and also the judgment of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. K.K. Engineering Co. (2001) 249 ITR 447 (Ker) as well as the order of this Tribunal in Babcock Power (Overseas Projects) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2002) 77 TTJ (Del) 357 : (2002) 81 ITD 29 (Del).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Assessee on 19 June, 2012

The learned Departmental representative has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Oberoi v. Union of India [2002] 257 Page 9 of 12 ITA No.2872 of 2010 MSED Co. Ltd Mumbai-F Bench ITR 105 (AP) but we see no merits in this defence either. This case only deals with the question whether payment for hotel rooms will be covered by the definition of rent, but then it was not, and could not have been, in dispute that the payment for hotel room constitutes payment for "the use of" an asset-the precise point of controversy in the present decision. Clearly, a hotel customer pays for the use of, or the right to the use of, the hotel room.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhirendra Ramji Vora, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

The decisions advanced by the Revenue, as in the case of CIT vs. Reebok India Co. [2007] 291 ITR 455 (Del); United Airlines vs. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 281 (Del); Krishna Oberoi vs. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 105 (AP); CIT vs. H.M.T. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 820 (Kar); and Braithwaite & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 542 (Cal.), stand distinguished by it (tribunal) on facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 October, 2014

The learned Departmental representative has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Oberoi v. Union of India [2002] 257 IT R 105 (AP) bu t we see no merits in this def ence either. This case only deals with the question whether payment for hotel rooms will be covered by the definition of rent, but then it was not, and could not have been, in dispute that the payment for hotel room constitutes payment for "the use of' an asset-the precise point of controversy in the present decision. Clearly, a hotel customer pays for the use of or the right to the use of the hotel room.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indus Towers Ltd. vs Cit & Ors. on 31 March, 2014

In Krishna Oberoi (supra), the facts were that the assessee owned a hotel which provided to its customers various types of furnished rooms with certain other facilities for a consideration called "room charges". Room charges were composite in nature and it included charges for various services catered by the hotel. It was argued that consideration received by the hotel management could not be treated as rent within the meaning of Section 194-I. Indian Airlines Limited and Asian Paints India Limited were the assessee's regular customers. Indian Airlines had entered into an agreement with the W.P.(C) 6085/2013 Page 27 assessee to utilise its hotel services for accommodating their cock-pit crew and Indian Airlines officials. As against the normal room tariff of `2,000/- per day, the Indian Airlines crew were provided accommodation for a sum of `825/-. The court repelled the assessee's contention that the transaction did not envision payment of rent and held that Section 194-I applied.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1