COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. RASHMI KHANNA

ITA - 74 / 2009HC Delhi20 February 20091 pages

For Petitioner: MR. PREM LATA BANSAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the two flats in question, being in the same building and found by the Tribunal to constitute one unit, should be treated as one property. The Court relied on its own previous decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal, [2006] 284 ITR 20 (Delhi), which dealt with identical facts. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that when flats in the same building are found to form a single unit, they are to be considered as one property for tax purposes, following established precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Rashmi Khanna, purchased two flats. One flat was purchased in her own name, and the other was purchased in the joint name of herself and her husband. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that these two flats, located in the same building, constituted a single property or one unit. This finding is common in property transactions in Delhi. The Revenue has appealed this finding.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the two flats, purchased separately but located in the same building and constituting one unit, should be treated as a single property for the purpose of assessment? (Question of fact and law, concerning the interpretation of property ownership and its tax implications). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. The decision appears to be based on a finding of fact by the Tribunal and reliance on a previous High Court judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue is challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the two flats constitute one property. The appeal is filed against the order of the ITAT.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 74/2009 . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms.P.L.Bansal, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Standing Counsel versus . . SMT. RASHMI KHANNA ..... Respondent Through . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER . . O R D E R 20.02.2009 . The finding of the fact is that the flats in question are in the same building. The Assessee has purchased one flat in her own name and the other flat in the joint name of her husband and herself. The finding is that these two flats constitute one property. The flats in issue, we find, form one unit. Such transactions, in Delhi, are common place. On identical facts this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax ?vs- Smt.Sunita Aggarwal, [2006] 284 ITR 20 (Delhi) has decided against the Revenue. Consequently, this Appeal shall suffer the same fate. Dismissed. VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J . . . . . . RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 20, 2009 nt . . . 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →