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. Dr. S.K. Kishore

Cit vs Dr. S.K. Kishore

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 08, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710689

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. 353 of 1986 8 August 2002
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 Sanjeev Khanna and; Ms. Rashmi Chopra, for the Revenu

Respondent

Dr. S.K. Kishore

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]124TAXMAN732(Delhi)

Excerpt

- at the instance of the assessed, the tribunal, delhi bench 'b', delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') the following question, arising out of it appeal nos. 4438 and 4439 (delhi) of 1985 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, for our opinion.'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that rental income from flat in a multi-storeyed building is assessable in the hands of the assessed under the head 'lncome from house property'?'2. since in our opinion answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the supreme court in cit v. podar cement (p) ltd. : [1997]226itr625(sc) , it is not necessary to state the facts. in the said decision, it has been held that for the purpose of section 22 of the act, the requirement of registration of sale deed is not warranted. it is observed that having regard to the ground realities and the object of the act, namely, to tax the income, 'owner' is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. in other words, what has been held is that if the purchaser has been put in possession of the property on his paying the full consideration, he can be treated as 'owner' for the purpose of section 22, even though no registered document as required under section 54 of the transfer of property act, 1882 has been executed in his favor.3. in view of the said authoritative pronouncement, question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.4. the reference stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

At the instance of the assessed, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following question, arising out of IT Appeal Nos. 4438 and 4439 (Delhi) of 1985 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, for our opinion.

'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rental income from flat in a multi-storeyed building is assessable in the hands of the assessed under the head 'lncome from house property'?'

2. Since in our opinion answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , it is not necessary to state the facts. In the said decision, it has been held that for the purpose of section 22 of the Act, the requirement of registration of sale deed is not warranted. It is observed that having regard to the ground realities and the object of the Act, namely, to tax the income, 'owner' is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. In other words, what has been held is that if the purchaser has been put in possession of the property on his paying the full consideration, he can be treated as 'owner' for the purpose of section 22, even though no registered document as required under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has been executed in his favor.

3. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

4. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial