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.

Cgt Vs. Hans Raj

Cgt vs Hans Raj

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 28, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710141

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
GT Reference No. 1 of 1993 28 March 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cgt

Advocate Girdhari Lal,; R.D. Jolly and; Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, fo

Respondent

Hans Raj

Legal References

Reported In
[2001]119TAXMAN129(Delhi)

Excerpt

- heard.2. at the instance of revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 26(1) of the gift tax act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as act) by the tribunal, delhi bench c :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in adopting the value of the gifted property by rent capitalisation method as against the valuation officer under section 15(6) of the gift tax act, 1958 ?'3. the dispute relates to the conclusion of the tribunal about the proper method to be applied for valuation of the gifted property. the tribunal held that taking into account the peculiar circumstances that the property was tenanted and the tenant was occupying house since long and was continuing even after the gift, indicated that rent capitalisation method was the proper method. the learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the position would be different after 1989, but when the proceedings related to an earlier period, the method adopted by the tribunal would not be proper.4. it is not in dispute that rent capitalisation method is one of the approved methods of the valuation of an immovable property, which is let out.findings of the tribunal to which we have made reference above are essentially factual. that being the position, in our view, no question of law arises which is to be answered. we, thereforee, decline to answer the question referred.5. reference is, accordingly, disposed of.

Full Judgment

Heard.

2. At the instance of revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in adopting the value of the gifted property by rent capitalisation method as against the Valuation Officer under section 15(6) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 ?'

3. The dispute relates to the conclusion of the Tribunal about the proper method to be applied for valuation of the gifted property. The Tribunal held that taking into account the peculiar circumstances that the property was tenanted and the tenant was occupying house since long and was continuing even after the gift, indicated that rent capitalisation method was the proper method. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the position would be different after 1989, but when the proceedings related to an earlier period, the method adopted by the Tribunal would not be proper.

4. It is not in dispute that rent capitalisation method is one of the approved methods of the valuation of an immovable property, which is let out.

Findings of the Tribunal to which we have made reference above are essentially factual. That being the position, in our view, no question of law arises which is to be answered. We, thereforee, decline to answer the question referred.

5. Reference is, accordingly, disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial