Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)

Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 13 September, 2004

7.4 It is further observed that the reliance of the appellant on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case Mahendra K. Ghelani is in order as Hon'ble Tribunal has clearly held while discussing the provisions of section 27(iii) & (iiib) that income from house property can be taxed only if the assessee is the owner of the property. At the same time I find that the decision relied upon by the AO i.e., in the case of Tivoli Investment & Trading Co.(P) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT 139 TTJ 520 (Mum.Trib) is not applicable since the facts are clearly distinguishable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs V.K. Construction Works (P.) Ltd. on 21 March, 1995

The lease agreement clearly provided that tenant Aryaman Financial Services Ltd. was not required to pay any rent from month to month except the said interest free deposit to assessee. Assessee has invested this interest free deposit for further investment in securities and general business purposes and has reflected in books of account as assets. We find that as per the decision of ITAT in the case of Mahendra K. Ghelani wherein the Tribunal has held that income from house property can be taxed only if the assessee is an owner of the property. We also further get the support from the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of in the case of CIT vs. A.V.K. Constructions P. Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 512 (Mad) wherein the High Court has also taken a similar view. Moreover, we find that assessee has leased out this property only for five years and the license agreement ends at the end of five year lease period and assessee has to handover the possession. Therefore, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) is justified in his action.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1