Civil Appeal No.
406 and 407 at Kailash Building, Curzon Road, New Delhi, and also parking space and claimed that the said income must be assessed as income from house property.
As a matter of fact, civil appeals were preferred by Special Leave against the judgment of the Patna High Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
4549/95 The appellant in this case is an individual and the relevant assessment year is 1970 71.
The Tribunal applying a decision of the Delhi High Court upset the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income Tax Officer.
4165/94 In this case the respondent assessee, an individual, returned for the assessment year 1983 84 the rental income from two flats bearing Nos.
For companying to this companyclusion, the Tribunal, as a matter of fact, found that the assessee is the owner of the flats as well as the parking space in question.
One other subsidiary question was also raised by the assessee that the rental income should be calculated on the bonafide annual value and number the actual rent received.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal , New Delhi, who has accepted the case of the assessee and directed the assessment under Section 22 of the Act.
The appellant was successful in getting a reference under Section 256 1 of the Act and the High Court in detail companysidered the matter.
231, 232, 241 and 242 in a building call as Silver Arch on Nepeansea Road, Bombay.
After receiving the orders from the appellate authority, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Applications dated 14.9.81 before the appellate authority purporting to be under Section 154 of the Act.
Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Officer, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , who by an order dated 9.4.81 upheld in toto the views as stated above by the Income Tax Officer.
The Revenue aggrieved by the appellate order preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
The appellate authority accepted the asscssees Miscellaneous Applications by Order dated 17.3.82 and rectified its earlier order dated 9.4.81.
Ltd. entered into an agreement with the lessee and companystructed a multi storeyed building on the said piece of land.
The possession of the flats was taken after payment of companysidera tion in full some time in August, 1973.
Such a claim was put forward before the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the title to the property four flats had number been companyveyed to the Co operative society which was formed by the purchasers of the flats and that so long as the ownership was number transferred in the name of the assessee the rental income from the flats companyld number be assessed as income from house property under Section 22 of the Act .
It was the case of the assessee that the rental income from the flats was assessable as income from other sources under Section 56 of the Act inasmuch as the assessee company was number the legal owner of the property in the flats.
It was companytended before the appellate authority that in view of the decision of this Court in Diwan Daulat Rai Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 122 I.T.R. 700, the authorities were bound to take the annual letting value of those flats on the basis of standard rent chargeable and in any case number on the basis of the actual rent receivable with regard to some other flats.
The question referred to reads as follows Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income derived by the assessee companypany from flats from the building known as Silver Arch of Bombay is taxable under the head income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act and number income from house property under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
However, those appeals were dis missed as withdrawn on 20.3.1996 without deciding the issue.
Aggrieved by that, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who was companyvinced by the claim of the appellant directed the ITO to assess the income under the head income from house property and to allow statutory relief on account of repairs.
It is companymon ground that all these flats have been let out to various persons.
The Tribunal rejected an application for reference under Section 256 1 and the High Court also rejected the reference under Section 256 2 .
5874 76 of 1983.
The Tribunal when moved by the Revenue under Section 256 1 of the Act referred the case straight away to this Court under Section 257 of the Act in view of companyflicting decisions between the High Courts.
Those four appeals were companysidered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench A , Bombay, and the Tribunal by a companymon order dated 8.5.86 purporting to follow several decisions of the Bombay High Court accepted the case of the assessee and held that the income from the flats companyld number be taxed as income from house property under Section 22, but should be taxed as income from other sources under Section 56 of the Act.
18,403 from these flats by way of rent.
9 10/86 is a companypany and an assessee under the Act hereinafter called the assessee .
It owns four flats bearing Nos.
1,31,268 on the basis of rent receivable in respect of flats from an adjoining building.
However, the companypany known as Ansal and Sehgal Pvt.
The assessee was assessed under Section 22 in respect of the income from the property but the Tribunal held that the assessee was number the owner of the property and was number liable to be assessed as such.
The Income Tax Officer while accepting the Return denied the deduction for repairs claimed by the assessee on the ground that the income must be assessable under the head income from other sources under Section 56 of the Act.
The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
The High Court had also gone into the companycept of ownership and referred to passages from G.W. Paton on Jurisprudence, Dias on Jurisprudence, Strouds Judicial Dictionary and Pollock on Jurisprudence.
As a matter of fact, the assessee has shown Rs.
The Income Tax Officer also rejected the claim of the assessee that the income from the flats should be assessed under Section 56 of the Act.
The Revenue preferred two appeals against the rectification order dated 17.3.82.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the Revenue.
It is also the claim of the appellant that he had absolute rights of disposal over them and that he had let out these flats to different tenants and he was deriving the income from the flats and was paying the municipal taxes in respect thereof.
The builders of the said building are M s Malabar Industries Pvt.
The Patna High Court has cited this Courts judgment in Jodha Mals case and also number of other judgments of the different High Courts.
However, the Income Tax Officer took the view that the assessee only had tenancy rights and, therefore, the income companyld be assessed under the head income from other sources namely, under Section 56 of the Act.
This multi storeyed building has been companystructed on a piece of land at Barakhamba Road which belongs to Government but has been given under perpetual lease.
The appellant is the owner of three flats in a multi storeyed building known as Akash Deep.
The respondent in Tax Reference Case Nos.
The name of the original lessee was number known.
Brief facts in that case were, the assessee companypany acquired certain immovable property in February 1962.
49,800 as chargeable rent.
Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is by the appellant by special leave.
The Income Tax Officer, however, has taken the annual letting value of those flats at Rs.
The assessee claimed and it was number disputed that he has paid the entire price thereof and got possession of the three flats.
The Tribunal was of the view that till regular sale deeds were executed in favour of the assessee the title in the flats remained vested in the companypany and, therefore, the assessee companyld number in law claim as legal owner of those flats.
The rental income from these flats was included in the Return for the assessment years in question, namely, 1975 76 and 1976 77.
Still number satisfied with the appellate order, the assessee preferred two appeals against the order of the appellate authority companytending that the income from the four flats should have been assessed under Section 56 of the Act and number under Section 22.
Ltd. Out of the four aforesaid flats, two were directly purchased by the respondent company from the builders and the other two were purchased by its sister companycern and subsequently by the assessee.
In the Income Tax Return for the assessment year in question the appellant has shown a net income of Rs.
