TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on property value, upholds legal precedent</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 Versus Laxmi Jain</h3> The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on rateable value determination for a ... Income from house property - Rateable value u/s 23(1)(a) of a property as to be determined as determined by the Municipal Authorities under the Corporation Act - Held that:- It is an admitted position that the property has not been let out. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by holding that, the issue raised herein, stands concluded by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Smt. Smitaben Ambani v/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax [2009 (1) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. No substantial question of law. Issues Involved:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on rateable value determination under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 26th November, 2014, concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The main question of law raised by the Revenue was whether the Tribunal was correct in determining the rateable value of a property under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act based on the assessment by Municipal Authorities under the Corporation Act. The property in question had not been let out. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal was based on the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in a previous case. The High Court noted that the issue at hand was already settled by the decision in Smt. Smitaben Ambani v/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax 323 ITR 104. Consequently, the High Court found that the question framed did not give rise to any substantial question of law and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded in this matter.This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents in determining similar issues and the significance of established case law in guiding decisions. It also underscores the principle that when a matter has been conclusively settled by a previous judgment, there may not be grounds for further legal challenge. The case serves as a reminder of the role of higher courts in interpreting and applying the law consistently, especially in matters of taxation and property valuation.
TaxTMI 
