Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (1) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hether, having regard to the terms of the deed of lease, the assesses is entitled to the benefit under clause (a) or the case falls under clause (b) of section 24(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - The question is to be determined on the basis of the interpretation of the deed of lease. - we are of the view that in this case, the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of section 24(1)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The order appealed against is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. - - - - - Dated:- 16-1-2003 - Judge(s) : D. K. SETH., R. N. SINHA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.K. SETH J.--The appeal was admitted on the following grounds: "(i) Whether on a proper construction of the lease agreement dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asement area to the lessee. In clause 2.2 it is provided that the lessor shall not be liable to provide electrical wiring and fittings and shall not do any whitewashing and painting inside the demised premises. However, the lessor undertook the painting of the common areas, doors and windows and the exterior walls of the said building at its own cost. Under sub-clause (k) of clause 11, the lessor has a right to enter, if necessary, for repair of the demised premises. Clause 12 has been relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent. This clause provides that the lessee is liable to keep the interior of the demised premises in good repair, particularly, the sanitary, electrical, fixtures and fittings. The lessee is to carry out all repair .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the lessor has the responsibility to repair the interior to a limited extent and whole of the exterior and maintain the essential services in good repair. This shows that the lessor has the liability to repair the demised premises substantially. There cannot be any other interpretation of the said deed of lease as rightly pointed out by Mr. Khaitan. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent, relying on clause 12 relates to the interior and virtually is in the nature of maintenance. Be that as it may, the liability to repair substantially by the lessor cannot be ruled out altogether. At the best, it can be treated to be a joint liability. On a comparison of the liability of the lessor and the lessee, as pointed out by Mr. Khaitan, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entitled to deduction of one-sixth of the annual value. If the tenant is responsible for repair, in that event, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction of an amount being the difference between the annual value exceeding the annual rent or one-sixth of the annual value whichever is less. This section does not provide for joint liability. Neither does it provide for any apportionment on account of such joint liability. Therefore, as soon clause (a) states that if the lessor undertakes to bear the cost of repairs of the property occupied by the lessee, then the lessor would be entitled to a deduction equivalent to one-sixth of the annual value. When the statute is silent, it has to be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the assessee. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt of the repairs, the benefit of section 9(1)(i) was made available to him. Though in a different context, on a different point, a similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Sir Shadi Lal and Sons v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 510, where Parbutty Churn Law [1965] 57 ITR 609 (Cal), was considered and it was held that in the said case clause (b) was applicable and not clause (a). But the principle laid down in Parbutty Churn Law [1965] 57 ITR 609 (Cal) was not deviated from. On the facts in the said case, it was found that the landlord was not liable for carrying out any substantial repair. The only repair that the landlord was liable to carry out was in case of collapsing of the building. This was held not to be a liability to undertake s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates