Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.54 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Satya Co. Ltd. on 2 August, 1993
(i) CIT v. Satya Co. Ltd. (1994) 75 Taxman 193 (Cal.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M. Ratanchand Chordia on 22 August, 1996
Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Ratanchand Chordia (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. on 5 June, 2000
20. Coming to the notional interest charged amounting to Rs. 16,20,000, this issue is squarely covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra). In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that notional interest on interest free deposit received from the lessee would not form part of the actual rent under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is to be deleted. It is deleted.
Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Another ... on 20 December, 1979
In the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Shiela Kaushish vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 18 August, 1981
In the case of Shiela Kaushish (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, the standard rent determined under, the provisions of Rent Control law would be the annual value even though the standard rent not determined.
The Corporation Of Calcutta vs Sm. Padma Debi And Others on 8 August, 1961
(b) The company let out the property to its Directors. The rent is not fixed on the basis of actual market price. In the normal circumstances the affordable and reasonable rent should be what the landlord might reasonably expected to get from a hypothetical tenant unless the rent is inflated or depressed by reason of extraneous considerations, such as relationship, expectation of some other benefit, etc. He held, the reasonableness of rent is undermined for extraneous consideration and let out the property for a meagre rent to its Directors. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Padma Debi (1962) 3 SCR 49 (Cal).
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. on 3 February, 1992
11. Assessee, before the CIT(A), made written submissions. It was submitted that the condition under which the take-over was carried out by the assessee was that the retiring partners of erstwhile firm will take the said building on monthly tenancy on rent payable at the rate of Re. 1 per sq. ft., which was an over-riding condition. Ground and first floor of the building was let out and this position was accepted by the department. The existing firm, viz. M/s. National Wire Products was dissolved on 31-12-1984 and the assessee company took over the business. It was on the occasion of this taking over the retiring partners stipulated the condition as mentioned above. Accordingly, the assessments were completed under section 143(3), for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1998-99, accepting the gross rental income declared. it was contended before the CIT(A) that there should be finality and certainty in litigations arising out of Income-tax Act and for the above proposition the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 410 (P&H) and the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Russel Properties (P.)
Russell Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs A. Chowdhury, Addl. Commissioner Of ... on 6 May, 1976
Ltd. v. A. Chowdhary, Addl. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 229 (Cal). It was contended, the earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened if that decision is not arbitrary or perverse and the decision has been arrived at after due enquiry and the tax authorities giving earlier decision considered material facts at that relevant point of time as it exists.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Belpahar Refractories Ltd. on 16 August, 1976
The assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. Belpahar Refractories Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 6 (Ori). It was further submitted, the Directors are paying tax on the amount received by them and therefore it will lead to double taxation if the amount is taxed again in the hands of assessee also. It was further submitted, as noted above, that the assessee company let out the premises as per the conditions in the takeover agreement made with the retiring partners. The assessee company cannot increase the rent as it is against the terms of the agreement. By virtue of the agreement, the tenant is protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, House Rates Control Act, 1947.