The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri K. M. Powvalla
High Court
19 Jul 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri K. M. Powvalla
Date of order
19 Jul 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri K. M. Powvalla, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding thatcharges payable to the society on account of security,common lighting, common garden etc., is allowable as adeduction from the annual letting value adopted on thebasis of Municipal Rateable value in com...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 622of 1987
The Commissioner of Income Tax
... Applicant.
vs.
Shri K. M. Powvalla ... Respondent
Mr. Ashok Katangale, Sr. Counsel with Mr. D.A. Dubey i/b. K.C.Sidhwa for Applicant Mr. J. D. Mistry i/b. Crawford Bailey & Co., for Respondent.
CORAM: V. C. DAGA AND A. S. AGUIAR JJ.Date: 19[th] July, 2005.
P. C.:
1. By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the followingquestions of law for the opinion of this court:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding thatcharges payable to the society on account of security,common lighting, common garden etc., is allowable as adeduction from the annual letting value adopted on thebasis of Municipal Rateable value in computing incomefrom self – occupied property?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was correct in law in deducting a sum otherthe Tribunal was correct in law in deducting a sum other
than taxes levied by a local authority to arrive at theannual letting value in terms of section 23(1) read withthe first proviso to it and section 23(2)(1) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961?”
3. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused referenceproceedings. proceedings.
4. For the reasons recorded by us in our judgment dated 1[st] July 2005passed in Income Tax Reference No. 397 of 1988 (C.I.T. vs. M/s.Pithwa Engg. Works), wherein we have relied upon decision of thiscourt in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v/s. CamcoColour Co., reported in ITR Vol. 254 (2002), page 565 we do notthink it necessary to answer the reference made to this Court for theAssessment Years 1976-77 and 1977-78, having negligible taxeffect. Accordingly, reference stands returned unanswered withno order as to costs. passed in Income Tax Reference No. 397 of 1988 (C.I.T. vs. M/s.Pithwa Engg. Works), wherein we have relied upon decision of thiscourt in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v/s. CamcoColour Co., reported in ITR Vol. 254 (2002), page 565 we do notthink it necessary to answer the reference made to this Court for theAssessment Years 1976-77 and 1977-78, having negligible taxeffect. Accordingly, reference stands returned unanswered withno order as to costs.
(A. S. AGUIAR J.)
(V. C. DAGA J. )
-x-
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.