TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual letting value of the property at Rs. 1,20,000?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The applicant is a Hindu undivided family which, along with the legal heirs of the late Lalloomal, was the half owner of the property known as Hind Cinema. This property was leased under a lease deed dated December 11, 1947, to Shri Sukh Nandan Prasad Varma with effect from January 1,1948, on a lease rent of Rs. 3,000 per month for a period of five years, i.e., up to December 31, 1952. However, before the expiry of the lease, there vas a further agreement in November, 1952, whereby the tenancy of the property was to be continued with the change, among others, that the rent was reduced to Rs. 2,500 p.m. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date of filing of the compromise and delivery of possession. However, even this compromise between the applicant and the legal representatives of Shri Sukh Nandan Prasad Varma was repudiated by the other co-owner of the property Shri Lalloomal. It appears that there were applications for execution of the decree and the Lucknow Bench of this court by order dated September 25, 1975, directed that till the disposal of the writ petition, Rs. 10,000 p.m. should be deposited in court for use and occupation of the premises with a view to safeguard the interest of the landlord. It appears that in the meantime the licence of the tenant to exhibit films in the cinema hall was cancelled by the district magistrate vide order dated March 31, 1975, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 10,000 p.m. fixed by the Lucknow Bench of this court for being deposited every month till the disposal of the writ petition, was in connection with the fixation of rent and the amount was fixed by this court only with a view to safeguard the interest of the landlord and this amount cannot, therefore, be said to be reasonable rent which the property is expected to fetch from year to year or for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner further held that the damages of Rs. 500 per day fixed under the compromise in the ejectment suit, was only to serve as a deterrent in case of failure to vacate the cinema building and not giving vacant possession by December 31, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s court only with a view to safeguard the interest of the landlord and this amount cannot, therefore, be said to be reasonable rent which the property is expected to fetch from year to year or for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. He relied upon a decision in the case of Addl. CIT v. Mrs. Leela Govindan [1978] 113 ITR 136 (Mad). Learned counsel for the Revenue, however submitted that it is not correct to say that the amount of Rs. 10,000 which the tenant was required to deposit every month under the order of this court, was in respect of the cancellation of licence. Instead it was in respect of the ejectment of the tenant and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly taken the annual letting value of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent case, is reproduced below: "23. Annual value how determined.- (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property is let and the annual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable." From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it will be seen that the annual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect of the property, if it is in excess of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let out, shall be the annual value. In the present case, ....