Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1993 (6) TMI 111 - AT - Wealth-tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal affirms valuation methods for property lease, dismisses appeal. The Tribunal upheld the valuation methods adopted by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Commissioner. The entire sum of Rs. 14,400 for the first and ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Tribunal affirms valuation methods for property lease, dismisses appeal.

                            The Tribunal upheld the valuation methods adopted by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Commissioner. The entire sum of Rs. 14,400 for the first and second floors leased out was considered as composite rent, including charges for fixtures and fittings. Additionally, the fair rent for the ground floor was estimated at Rs. 6,000 per month, which the Tribunal deemed fair and reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding no merit in the assessee's arguments and affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.




                            Issues Involved:

                            1. Valuation of the first and second floors leased out to Central Silk Board (CSB).
                            2. Estimation of fair rent for the ground floor.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Valuation of the First and Second Floors Leased Out to Central Silk Board (CSB):

                            The controversy in ground Nos. 1 & 2 revolves around the valuation of the first and second floors leased out by the assessee to the Central Silk Board (CSB) on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,400. The assessee contended that the rent should exclude charges for fixtures and fittings, which amounted to Rs. 2,750 for the first floor and Rs. 2,000 for the second floor. According to the assessee, only the rent for the premises should be considered for valuation under rule 1BB.

                            The Assessing Officer, however, included the entire sum of Rs. 14,400 as the gross rent and, after deductions, arrived at a net maintainable rent of Rs. 1,33,481. This net rent was then multiplied by 12.5 times to arrive at a value of Rs. 16,67,888, which was added to the wealth returned. The First Appellate Authority upheld this method, agreeing that the entire sum of Rs. 14,400 was a composite rent for the use, occupation, and enjoyment of the premises, including fixtures and fittings.

                            The Tribunal examined the lease deeds and the definition of "rent" as per judicial precedents and dictionaries. It was noted that the lease deeds did not separate the rent for the premises from the charges for fixtures and fittings. The Tribunal concluded that the intention of both parties was to treat the rent as a composite sum for the entire leased property, including fixtures and fittings. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's valuation method, confirming that the entire sum of Rs. 14,400 should be considered as rent for the purpose of rule 1BB.

                            2. Estimation of Fair Rent for the Ground Floor:

                            In the 5th ground, the assessee argued that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in estimating the fair rent for the ground floor at Rs. 5,000 per month, which the assessee considered excessive. The Tribunal reviewed the arguments and the findings of the Appellate Commissioner, who had directed the Assessing Officer to take the rent of the ground floor at Rs. 6,000 per month and work out the value accordingly.

                            The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Appellate Commissioner's direction and considered it fair and reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the valuation method and the estimated rent for the ground floor as directed by the Appellate Commissioner.

                            Conclusion:

                            The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the valuation methods adopted by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Commissioner. The entire sum of Rs. 14,400 for the first and second floors was rightly considered as composite rent, and the fair rent for the ground floor was reasonably estimated at Rs. 6,000 per month. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contentions and upheld the orders of the lower authorities.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found