By Accommodation Times Bureau Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had decided that consent of the land lord is must before creating the tenancy. The company in liquidation admittedly does not own the property. We cannot force Tivoli either to sell or let it out to Wacoma. Interim arrangement was made at the
Clause (d) inserted in section 801B[10) with effect from April 1, 2005, is prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied for the period prior to April 1, 2005. Since deduction under section 801B[1Oj were on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority
By Adv. Vinod Sampat CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. .............. Appellant Versus Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. …........... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2545 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2546 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2547 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2456 OF
In a recent case of an argument of a real estate development company that they are entitled to sell garages or stilt parking areas as separate flats to owners who intend to use it as parking facilities, a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and R M Lodha of Supreme
In a recent case of a writ petition filed against a case of flat owners of an illegally constructed building seeking respite from the BMC’s orders, the divison Bench of the Bombay HC held that in such matters it is necessary to take into account, not only the interest of
Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee, a tenant in a flat, sold tenancy rights for Rs. 30 lakhs and offered long-term capital gains on the basis that the said sum was the consideration. The AO took the view that as the market value adopted the Sub-Registrar was Rs.
The Madras High Court has held that an instrument, whether a certificate of sale or sale deed, issued in a public auction of properties, was chargeable with stamp duty under Article 18 read with Article 23 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In an elaborate 48-page judgement on
Importance of Occupation Certificate (OC)
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of United Motors (I) Ltd. has held that income from transfer of a leased premises without transferring its own business amounts to extinguishment of the taxpayer’s right in the capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax-tax Act, 1961 .
The Tribunal also observed that such transfer of leased premises without transferring the business cannot be considered as loss of source of income. Further, the source of income is always the business which is capable of producing some income and not the building from where the source of income is operated. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the building itself cannot be considered as source of income.
A five-judge bench of the Bombay High Court upheld a 1980 ruling by a three-judge bench on holding of land in Maharashtra under the Agriculture Land Ceiling Act. The ruling means that while deciding whether a person is holding land in excess of the ceiling set by the government, his