Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi

Cit vs Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 30, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707592

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Reference No. 5 of 1984 30 January 2003
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

In the Delhi High Court D.K Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Sanjeev Sabharwal and; Rajeev Awasthi,;for the Revenue; S.K

Respondent

Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi

Legal References

Reported In
[2003]130TAXMAN266(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court d.k jain & madan b. lokur, jj. - orderd.k. jain, j.at the instance of the revenue, the income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961, the following question for the opinion of this court :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was legally correct in holding that the value of perquisite in respect of residential accommodation at modi nagar be limited to the standard rent fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the up urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act, 1972 ?'2. the reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. since answer to question stands concluded by the decision of this court, it is not necessary to state the facts. an issue, similar to the one raised in this reference, came up for consideration of this court in cit v. m.k. modi : [1993]200itr673(delhi) wherein it was held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessed by way of a rent-free accommodation, the basis has to be the standard rent fixed by the rent controller in respect of similar accommodation by another person under section 9 of the up urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act, 1972. following the said decision, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.3. the reference stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.K. Jain, J.

At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for the opinion of this court :

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the value of perquisite in respect of residential accommodation at Modi Nagar be limited to the standard rent fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ?'

2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. Since answer to question stands concluded by the decision of this court, it is not necessary to state the facts. An issue, similar to the one raised in this reference, came up for consideration of this court in CIT v. M.K. Modi : [1993]200ITR673(Delhi) wherein it was held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessed by way of a rent-free accommodation, the basis has to be the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller in respect of similar accommodation by another person under section 9 of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Following the said decision, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

3. The reference stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial