John Tinson and Company (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Decided On : Oct-19-2006

Court : Delhi

LAW: the Income Tax Act, Section 22, the Income Tax Act, Section 22, Section 23(b, Section 23(1)(a, the Rent Control Act, Section 154, Section 23, the IT Act, Section 23, Section 23(1, the Rent Act, Section 23(1, Section 23(1, the IT Act

PERSON: Vikramajit Sen, J.1, Messrs Venkatraman, Janpath, Jolly, Amolak Ram Khosla v. Commissioner, Dewan, Rai Kapoor, Sheila Kaushish, L. Bansidhar, Vinay Bharatram, Remand Order, John Tinson and, Balbir Singh v. MCD, Kamla Mills, Order

DATE: Appeals:1, annual, 1961, 1961, 50 per month, 75 per month, Years, annual, annual, year, 1997, 1998, annual, 1976, 2003, annual, 1982, September 9, 1995, annual, year, 1888, annual, year, year, 1975, year, 17.3.2006

ORG: AO, the Rent Controller.2, AO, the Bhagat Group of Companies, AO, AO, Bank of India, United India Insurance Company, AO, AO, AO, AO, Section, AO, the High Court of Calcutta, CIT, Satya Co. Ltd., CTR, the High Court, CIT v. Parasmal Choradia, CTR, AO, the Apex Court, Income-Tax, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Income-Tax, Court, Income-Tax v., Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust, AO, Sons, Court, Income-Tax, ITR, Department, the Supreme Court, Court, the Appeal of the Department, Court, NDMC, the Supreme Court, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Kamla Mills Ltd., Court, Rent Acts, the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, Court, the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, AO, AO, Kamla Mills, AO, AO, AO, AO, AO, the Income-Tax Act.9, AO, AO, the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, AO

CARDINAL: 22, 23, 23, two, 80, 140, 569, 145, 4., 1981]131ITR589(SC, 1980]122ITR700(SC, 1981]131ITR435(SC, 1990]183ITR297(Delhi, 1993]201ITR655(Delhi, 261, 14-16, two, 6, 8., 10, 9

GPE: Explanationn, Counsel, Delhi

QUANTITY: 100 per sq.foot

NORP: ITAT

WORK_OF_ART: The Assessing Officer, 'Rateable Value'

ORDINAL: first, second