1985 (2) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Tribunal's order dt.7th Feb., 1984. Though the Bench had first held the matter to be part-heard, later on it directed that it should not be treated as part-heard. 2. The ground for our consideration in this Department appeal is regarding the income to be included in respect of the lease of the premises atBombay. These permises were at 4-A, 4th Floor, Veer Vulcan Insurance Building, Veer Narima Road, Bombay-400020 which had been taken as lease by the assessee-company. It was sub-let to M/s Hero's Publicity Service at a rent of Rs. 2,550 P.M. in 1967. This sub-lease expired on31st Jan., 1972. Thereafter there was litigation between the parties and ultimately the Bombaly High Court passed a consent order on24th Sept., 1974, by which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 2,550 p.m. It was also contended that the claim of the assessee was in jeopardy as a result of the litigation between the parties. The CIT (Appeals) accepted this claim of the assessee and held that the compensation for the premised could be taken at Rs. 1,004 p. m. and allowed relief to the assessee. 5. The Departmental Representative submitted before us that the full picture was now before the Tribunal that there was an agreement between the parties for a payment of Rs. 2,550 p.m. and after this there was litigation between the parties and whereas the tenants wanted to pay only the standard rent and not the agreed rent, the assessee wanted them either to vacate or to pay agreed rent. A reference was made to the order of the High C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made was subject to the rights of the parties and the subsequent compromise order should not be taken into consideration to decide the issue in this year. He relied on several order including the decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC), Khan Bhadur ahmed Alladin & Sons vs. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 651 (AP) and CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 380 (Cal). He contended that the right to receive income arose after the compromise order was passed and the two suits were dismissed. 8. We have considered the facts of the case and we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that only an amount of Rs. 1004 per month was to be brought to tax in the hands of ....