The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S.hotel Diamond, Mumbai
High Court
12 Jan 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S.hotel Diamond, Mumbai
Date of order
12 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S.hotel Diamond, Mumbai, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Appeal therefore stands dismissed. .....
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.278 OF 2004
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.278 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Appellant
V/s
M/s.Hotel Diamond, Mumbai .. Respondents
Mr.R.V.Desai for the Appellant.
Mr.A.V.Jain for the Respondents.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 12.01.2005.
DATE : 12.01.2005.
DATE : 12.01.2005.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused
the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Trubunal,
Mumbai, dated 16.7.2002.
2. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has brought to our notice that on the identical substantial question of law, this Court in the case of Cadell Weaving MillCompany Limited V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax - 249 ITR265 has come to the conclusion that receiving of an amount in consideration of surrendering of statutory
tenancy rights and/or possessory rights is not
assessable to tax, within the meaning of Section 10(3)
read with Section 53 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted
that the above-mentioned judgment will not apply in the
instant case because in the instant case there is no
surrendering of tenancy but the premises were handed
over on expiry of tenancy.
4. However, the facts and circumstances of the case
indicate that even after expiry of leave and licence
agreement on 19th June, 1987, for a number of years
thereafter the Respondents were allowed to continue in
the premises and the landlord being the co-owner was
receiving the rent of the premises from the Respondents
even after expiry of the aforesaid leave and licence
agreement, as such they were protected licensees under
the Bombay Rent Act. On surrendering of tenancy the
Respondents had received certain consideration during
the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year
1992-1993. Thus the judgment in the aforsaid case of
Cadell Weaving Mill Company Limited
Cadell Weaving Mill Company Limited also applies to the
Cadell Weaving Mill Company Limited
instant case. Hence no substantial question of law is
involved in this Appeal. Appeal therefore stands
dismissed.
.....
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.