Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal

8 SCC 252Reported decision2005#13110 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2018.

Judgments citing Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Gvk Project & Technical Services Ltd

ITA/646/2018HC Delhi28 May 2018

Bench: The Learned Trial Court, Which Was Dismissed By An Order Dated 15.12.2018 By The Learned Trial Court. 3.1 Learned Counsel For The Petitioner/Tenant Submits That The Digitally Signed By:Geeta Joshi Signing Date:09.03.2025 06:37:26 Signature Not Verified

Section 25

…Respondent/Landlady as to which premises is more suitable to satisfy the bona fide requirement under the DRC Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal[(2005) 8 SCC 252] and in Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja[(2014) 15 SCC 610], wherein the Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in the following words: “6. ……What the tenant contends is that the Landlady has several other shop houses from which he is carrying on different businesses and further that the Landlady has other premises from where the business propos…

Jay Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-V

ITA/308/2016HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

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

…Khanna Vs. Parduman Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4013 at paragraph 7. 12.7. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarshan Kumar (2021) 15 SCC 75 at paragraph 12 and 14 and Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610 at paragraph 5. Analysis and Finding 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 14. The eviction petition(s) were instituted in the month of September, 2013, by the Respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’), invoking the special provisions of Section 25B of the s…

Travelport L.P., Usa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -3 New Delhi

ITA/299/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…Khanna Vs. Parduman Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4013 at paragraph 7. 12.7. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarshan Kumar (2021) 15 SCC 75 at paragraph 12 and 14 and Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610 at paragraph 5. Analysis and Finding 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 14. The eviction petition(s) were instituted in the month of September, 2013, by the Respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’), invoking the special provisions of Section 25B of the s…

Cincom System Inc. Usa vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax Circle 1 (1) International Taxation

ITA/117/2016HC Delhi05 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 14(1)(e)

…no. 2 is Hotelier and has been running his hotel in partnership with his mother since 1971 and the said fact is mentioned in the reply to leave to defend application. 41. He relies on Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs Vimalabai Prabhlal &Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252, wherein it was categorically held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlords as to what he should do and what he should not with regard to the tenanted premises. It is always the privilege of the landlords to choose the nature of the business and the place of business. 42. He further argues that the financial status…

Pankaj Mahajan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Xiii

ITA/35/2016HC Delhi03 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 14(1)(e)Section 25B(8)

…ing the respondent / tenant as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 16. Not only it is the settled law (See Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 14 SCC 610, Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252 and Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119) that the tenant is not entitled to dictate terms to the landlord and his family members as to how they should arrange their affairs but the respondent, who has been a tenant for decades in the premises ought to know that the locality where the premises are situated is densel…

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd

ITA/2/2016HC Delhi08 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 14

…46. The law is well settled that a tenant cannot dictate to the Respondent/Landlady as to which premises is more suitable to satisfy the bona fide requirement under the DRC Act. Reference in this regard may be made to 7 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7396 8 (2005) 8 SCC 252 9 (2014) 15 SCC 610 Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:08.03.2025 23:05:25 Signature Not Verified RC.REV. 2/2016 Page 12 of 16 the decision of the Supreme Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd

ITTA/392/2013HC Telangana05 Sept 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee, Anakapalli

ITTA/342/2011HC Telangana18 Oct 2011

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR