Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Limited v. Union of India

383 ITR 697High Court2016#20696 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2022.

Judgments citing Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Limited v. Union of India

Commnr.Income Tax vs. Piyush Ku Gupta

ITA/123/2005HC Orissa02 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S I.T.C. Ltd

ITA/77/2005HC Delhi04 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 194Section 201Section 260ASection 271C

…ocate for the Assessee. 13. The contention of the Revenue as regards question (i) in the quantum appeals is that it stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgement of this Court in Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Limited v. Union of India (2016) 383 ITR 697 (Del) where, the Court emphasized the expanded definition of the word ‘rent’ under Section 194-I of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case when the LA is read as a whole, it is plain that the payment made, although in two parts, is for operating an executive lounge. The non-payment of even one component, as either of royalty or of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S I.T.C. Ltd

ITA/73/2005HC Delhi04 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 194Section 201Section 260ASection 271C

…ocate for the Assessee. 13. The contention of the Revenue as regards question (i) in the quantum appeals is that it stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgement of this Court in Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Limited v. Union of India (2016) 383 ITR 697 (Del) where, the Court emphasized the expanded definition of the word ‘rent’ under Section 194-I of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case when the LA is read as a whole, it is plain that the payment made, although in two parts, is for operating an executive lounge. The non-payment of even one component, as either of royalty or of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Singh Enterprises

ITA/80/2006HC Delhi06 Jul 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

Section 194Section 201Section 260ASection 271C

…ocate for the Assessee. 13. The contention of the Revenue as regards question (i) in the quantum appeals is that it stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgement of this Court in Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Limited v. Union of India (2016) 383 ITR 697 (Del) where, the Court emphasized the expanded definition of the word ‘rent’ under Section 194-I of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case when the LA is read as a whole, it is plain that the payment made, although in two parts, is for operating an executive lounge. The non-payment of even one component, as either of royalty or of…

Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Limited v. Union of India (383 ITR 697) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax