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 Feb 13, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707598

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. 169 of 1987 13 February 2003
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Sanjiv Khanna and; Subhash C. Sharma, for the Revenue; Sant

Respondent

Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi

Legal References

Reported In
[2003]130TAXMAN267(Delhi)

Excerpt

- d.k. jain, j.at the instance of revenue, the income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in upholding the determination of the perquisite value of the accommodation, furniture, electricity and water at rs. 5,784.'2. the reference pertains to the assessment year 1981-82. the issue is with respect to the determination of the value of perquisite provided to the respondent-assessed by his employer by way of rent-free accommodation, furniture, electricity and water.from the order of the tribunal we find that though the tribunal has referred to its earlier orders passed in the cases of the assessed and other directors of the same company, but in the penultimate paragraph of its order, except for relying on the said order, it has not recorded any reason for deciding the issue in favor of the assessed.3. similar issue had come up for our consideration in the cases of some of the assessed's belonging to the same group. in cit v. mahesh kumar modi (it reference no. 6 of 1984, dated 6-2-2003), relying on an earlier decision 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 rent-free accommodation, basis had 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, we have affirmed the view taken by the tribunal on both the issues. following the said decision, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e. in favor of the assessec and against the revenue.4. the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

D.K. Jain, J.

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

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the determination of the perquisite value of the accommodation, furniture, electricity and water at Rs. 5,784.'

2. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1981-82. The issue is with respect to the determination of the value of perquisite provided to the respondent-assessed by his employer by way of rent-free accommodation, furniture, electricity and water.

From the order of the Tribunal we find that though the Tribunal has referred to its earlier orders passed in the cases of the assessed and other Directors of the same company, but in the penultimate paragraph of its order, except for relying on the said order, it has not recorded any reason for deciding the issue in favor of the assessed.

3. Similar issue had come up for our consideration in the cases of some of the assessed's belonging to the same group. In CIT v. Mahesh Kumar Modi (IT Reference No. 6 of 1984, dated 6-2-2003), relying on an earlier decision 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 rent-free accommodation, basis had 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, we have affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal on both the issues. Following the said decision, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e. in favor of the assessec and against the revenue.

4. The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial