Poddar Projects Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv

Poddar Projects Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 18, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1164907

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1164907
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Soumitra Pal
Decided On: Sep 18, 2014
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Direct Taxation

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Poddar Projects Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv

Excerpt

.....the appointment of md.nizamuddin. the appeal was admitted on the following questions : “i) whether the income tax appellate tribunal ought not to have held that the surcharge on municipal tax was part of the rent and/or annual value for the purposes of section 23(1) of the income tax act, 1961 as it stood prior to its amendment by the finance act, 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002 ?. ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income tax appellate tribunal was justified in law in holding that for determining annual value in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the income tax act, 1961, the word ‘rent’ appearing therein would encompass ‘surcharge on municipal tax’ in respect of a property let out to a tenant and used by him for commercial or nonresidential purposes ?. iii) whether the income tax appellate tribunal was justified in law in holding that the surcharge on municipal taxes i.e.surcharge on the consolidated rate, as referred to in calcutta municipal corporation act, 1980 collected and recovered by the assessee, as the owner of the premises, from the tenants or occupiers.is part of the actual rent received by the assessee within the meaning of subclause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the income tax act, 1961 and consequently the surcharge on municipal taxes amounting to rs.6,76,627/- be included for the purpose of determination of income under the head ‘income from house property’ ?.” it is submitted by md.nizamuddin that the issues are covered by the judgment in the assessee’s own case in poddar projects ltd.versus cit, cal : 2011 taxmann 493 in favour of the revenue. since we find that the questions are squarely covered by the judgment of poddar projects ltd.(supra).the appeal is dismissed. (soumitra pal, j.) (debangsu basak, j.) km ar(cr)

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.845 of 2004 PODDAR PROJECTS LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - IV BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 18th September, 2014.

Md.Nizamuddin, Advocate.

The Court : None appears on behalf of the revenue when the matter is called on.

Md.Nizamuddin, learned advocate, who normally appears on behalf of the revenue, is requested to appear in this matter.

Learned Central Government advocate is directed to regularize the appointment of Md.Nizamuddin.

The appeal was admitted on the following questions : “i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought not to have held that the surcharge on municipal tax was part of the rent and/or annual value for the purposes of section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002 ?.

ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for determining annual value in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the word ‘rent’ appearing therein would encompass ‘Surcharge on Municipal Tax’ in respect of a property let out to a tenant and used by him for commercial or nonresidential purposes ?.

iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the surcharge on municipal taxes i.e.surcharge on the consolidated rate, as referred to in Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 collected and recovered by the assessee, as the owner of the premises, from the tenants or occupieRs.is part of the actual rent received by the assessee within the meaning of subclause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently the surcharge on Municipal Taxes amounting to Rs.6,76,627/- be included for the purpose of determination of income under the head ‘Income from House Property’ ?.” It is submitted by Md.Nizamuddin that the issues are covered by the judgment in the assessee’s own case in Poddar Projects LTD.versus CIT, Cal : 2011 Taxmann 493 in favour of the Revenue.

Since we find that the questions are squarely covered by the judgment of Poddar Projects LTD.(supra).the appeal is dismissed.

(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) km AR(CR)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Poddar Projects Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge Soumitra Pal