cites: 1398833

Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 395

Section 10 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 116

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs G.R. Karthikeyan, Coimbatore on 22 April, 1993

(ii) The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the CIT vs. G. R. Kartikeyan (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) was not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said case it was not disputed that the receipt was not income whereas in the instant case, the things are not like that.

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 115 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Bawa Shiv Charan Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 6 January, 1984

11. After having heard both the sides, going through the orders of the authorities below and material placed on record, we find that receipt of Rs. 15,00,000 is on account of surrender of tenancy right, which came into existence in 1946 and continued with the assessee till it was surrendered during the year under consideration and since such right was acquired by the assessee without incurring any cost, therefore, in our considered view, the said receipt is not exigible to tax as capital gain in view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Bawa Shiv Charan Singh (supra) which has been followed by later decision of CIT vs. Arun Kumar Sen (1998) 231 ITR 945 (Del).

Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gulab Chand on 4 March, 1991

As regards Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Gulab Chand (supra), in view of contrary decision of the same Court in Anand Bala Bhushan's case and Calcutta High Court's decision in B. K. Roy's case, cannot be said to have overriding effect.

Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 27 - B P Reddy - Full Document