Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
K.L.Rajamanickam vs Shornur Municipality on 10 June, 2016 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Parbutty Churn Law. on 12 June, 1964

This is clearly not a case where the burden of carrying out repairs as understood in the context of Section 24(1)(i)(b) is shared between the lessor and the lessee. The obligation is on the lessee alone. The obligation under the latter part of the covenant does not relate to such repairs. The appellant's reliance on Commr. of Income-tax v. Parbutty Churn Law (1965-57 ITR 609) (Cal) is in the facts of the present case misplaced."
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Padmanabhan Vijaykumar vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 1993

Therefore it can be seen that while considering the terminologies used therein it was found that the change effected by replacing the asbestos roof to concrete roof cannot have any adverse effect with regard to the scope and object of the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification. It was held that change of asbestos roof to concrete roof does not involve any increase in the existing plinth area or FSI of the building and that it is only a repair of the existing authorised structure. This Court was considering the provisions contained in another Act wherein it was provided that no construction will be permitted within the zone except for repairs of the existing authorised structures with the specification mentioned therein. Further relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. M/s.Southern Fisheries Corporation (2011 [1] KLT 956) it is argued that the work done W.P(C) No. 2750 of 2011 -: 11 :- by the petitioner would not attract the provisions contained in the KMBR which requires him to obtain a permit. In that case this Court was considering the provisions contained in Section 2(k) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and whether the truss work over terrace of a commercial building would come within the exemption clause of the Act. It was held that mere covering of roof to protect the building from rain and sun does not make the terrace as part of plinth area for assessment. The judgment reported in Padmanabhan's case (supra) was also to the very same effect wherein it was held that covered terrace or residential buildings does not constitute plinth area for building tax assessment unless if such terrace in full or part is enclosed with bricks, walls, grills, wood or the like.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 39 - N P Singh - Full Document

Lodha Properties Development Private ... vs Kedia Holdings Private Limited And Ors on 11 March, 2015

The idea of 'repair' may include replacement or even a renewal. But the converse may not be true. All replacements or renewals need not necessarily be 'repairs'. In the case of a building, restoration of stability or safety of a subordinate or subsidiary part of it or any portion of it can be considered as repair while the re- construction of the entirety of the subject matter may not be so regarded. The somewhat comprehensive import of the word 'repair' in this context is evident from the reliance by Forbes. J. In Ravenseft Properties Ltd. v. Davstone (Holdings) Ltd. (1980) QB 12. On the following observations of Sir Harbert Cozens-Hardy MR in Lurcott's case (supra) :
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - R M Savant - Full Document
1   2 Next