https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29547 HC held that the payment under the 29 Dec 1972 agreement did not create an overriding title in purchasers over part of the rent, so the ?7,200 was not deductible from Income from House Property. The obligation was a personal liability (compensation for retention of ?21 lakhs) that co-owners could discharge from other income, not a diversion at source. However, the Tribunal was correct in observing the ITO should examine entitlement to a deduction under Income from Other Sources if claimed, since the ITO must compute total income in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2025 19:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29547 HC held that the payment under the 29 Dec 1972 agreement did not create an overriding title in purchasers over part of the rent, so the ?7,200 was not deductible from Income from House Property. The obligation was a personal liability (compensation for retention of ?21 lakhs) that co-owners could discharge from other income, not a diversion at source. However, the Tribunal was correct in observing the ITO should examine entitlement to a deduction under Income from Other Sources if claimed, since the ITO must compute total income in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29547