{"id":47520,"date":"1991-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991"},"modified":"2017-12-19T05:35:28","modified_gmt":"2017-12-19T00:05:28","slug":"new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991","title":{"rendered":"New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi<\/div>\n
New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 38 ITD 28 Delhi<\/div>\n
Bench: A Kalyanasundharam<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
A. Kalyanasundharam, Accountant Member<\/p>\n
1. These are two appeals by the assessee, a limited company, aggrieved by the revisionary orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-Ill, New Delhi, vide his order dated 29th & 30th March, 1990. The issues involved in these two appeals are common and therefore, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order.\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts briefly are that, the assessee company in an earlier year had taken on lease two commercial plots of land from DDA bearing Nos . 6 and 11 Saket Community Center, New Delhi. On these two plots, the assessee completed the construction of the building in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 and let them on two separate leases to two limited companies on a monthly lease rent of Rs. 18,000 each. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, it had completed the construction of the air-conditioning plant at 6 Saket Community Center and by means of a lease deed, referring to the earlier lease deed of the building, the additional rental of Rs. 12,000 was agreed to by the lessee.\n<\/p>\n
The assessee in its profit & loss account depicted the income from these two properties and the air-conditioning plant and the final result was a loss. The return showing loss under the head business was filed for both the assessment years and the assessing officer accepted the return with the modification of non-allowance of house tax and ground rent which were unpaid, by applying the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. The assessee only raised the issue of the amounts disallowed as wrong, but on principle of disallowance did not make any challenge. The first appellate authority directed the assessing officer to disallow only the amount that remained unpaid. This was accepted by the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Commissioner for the assessment year 1986-87 invoked his powers under Section 263 of the Act, for the reason of the income from property could not have been assessed under business income, but under the head property income. He was of the opinion that, leasing of the air-conditioning plant not having been mentioned in the lease deed as a necessary condition, the composite income from property and air-conditioning plant could not be assessed as either business income or as income from other sources. He, therefore, disallowed depreciation on the building and the air-conditioning plant. He was further of the opinion that, interest paid on moneys borrowed from the banks for the purpose of the construction can be allowed against the property income but only to the available income under that head, as loss under that head is not allowed to be carried forward. Based on his opinion for the assessment year 1986-87, he invoked his revisionary powers for the assessment year 1986-87 and made identical observations. He then directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment, based on his observation.\n<\/p>\n
The assessee is aggrieved by each of the observations of the Commissioner and by his setting aside the assessment and has filed these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
4. Shri Agarwal contended that, the Commissioner had not properly appreciated the case and the facts as are related to the assessee. He contended that, the Commissioner was referred to the memorandum and articles of association of the company and his attention was specifically drawn to the objects clause, which clearly demarcates the areas of business operations of the company. Referring to the reply as was filed in response to the show-cause notice of the Commissioner, he submitted that, the company’s objects are to acquire, purchase, sell through lease, exchange, hire or otherwise lands and properties, houses, buildings etc. When this fact is noted with the actual operation of the assessee acquiring on lease the two plots of lands, followed by the construction of the two commercial buildings, and then leasing them, initially without the air-conditionirig, but followed by the lease of the air-conditioning, when the plant was commissioned, all go to imply that, the assessee-company had only acted upon the objects clause. The company having complied with the objects of its memorandum, it is necessary to appreciate that fact and it should be examined in that light. He pleaded that, the lease-deed of the property did not contain any clause about the provision of the air-conditioning facility, but the fact remained that, the assessee was constructing the air-conditioning plant and this was so shown in the balance sheet for the assessment year 1985-86. He also pleaded that, it was not one of those window type air-conditioners which could be installed in a few hours or in a day but an extensive one, the completion of which took few months. As soon as it was complete, and commissioned, it was provided to the same lessee on an additional rental, which also goes to establish the claim of the appellant that, the intention to let the building with air-conditioning facility existed right from the beginning. He therefore contended that, it needs to be appreciated that, such kind of facility of air-conditioning, though provided subsequent to the lease of the building, was expected of by the lessee. He pleaded that, more than the actual letting of the composite unit, what is essential is the intention, which is clear from the actual actions and facts. He accordingly contended that, the income from the property, both with and without the air-conditioning facility should be assessed as either income from business or as from other sources but not as income from property. He placed reliance on the Delhi Bench decision in Daljit Exports (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 36 ITD 305 and submitted that, the building and the air-conditioning are inseparable units or composite units and the income from such units are to be assessed as income from business or from other sources only.\n<\/p>\n
He referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Snam Progetti S.P.A. v. Addl. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 70 and submitted that, the Commissioner has no dispute to the fact that, the interest was paid on loans borrowed for construction but his objection was to the observation of the Commissioner that, the interest could be allowed only to the extent of available income as the income was assessable under property. He pleaded that, the income ought to be assessed under business or other sources and the interest having been paid for the earning of the income, has to be necessarily deducted in full. He also submitted that, even under the income from property, there is no restriction as to the allowance of the interest and it does not state that, interest is allowable to the extent of available income, but income from property could be a loss also. He then referred to the reply to the Commissioner and submitted that, the Supreme Court in Sultan Bros. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353, supports the facts of the assessee. He submitted that, the Commissioner had not appreciated properly the ruling of Calcutta High Court in Tinsukhia Development Corporation  Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 466. He contended that, in this ruling the Calcutta High Court had only laid down that, the Income-tax Act which defines certain heads of income for assessment under that Act and the income could be assessed only under those heads. He pleaded that, there is no dispute to this principle, but what need to be seen is whether, the head of income sought to be applied in the case of the appellant company is proper and in line with its facts or not. He pleaded that, the nature of the income determines the head of income under which it could be assessed and it is not the head of income, which would determine the nature of income. The nature of income of the appellant company is composite for the building and the air-conditioning, though they were not simultaneous and, therefore, it is only proper that, the income is assessed under business or income from other sources.\n<\/p>\n
5. The DR placed heavy reliance on the order of the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
6. The rival contentions have been duly considered and also the various materials that have been placed on the record of this court. Before I proceed with the contentions as were made by either side, I shall bring out the computation of the income as was made by the Commissioner in his order, which he thought was proper :\n<\/p>\n
                          Assessment year            Assessment year\n                            1985-86                     1986-87\n       Rental Receipts      188129                      528000\nLess : House Tax paid         nil                        51030\n     : Ground rent paid       nil                         nil\n     : l\/6th for repairs     31355                       79495\n     : insurance             12069                        nil\n     : interest on loans     192539                       nil\n                            --------                    --------\n                             235963                      130525\n                            --------                    --------\n                            (-)47634                     337475\n                            --------                    --------\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
The Commissioner found as a fact that No. 6 Saket Community Center property was provided with the air-conditioning facility and on the air-conditioning, the assessee had incurred a cost of Rs. 6,07,705. The other factor noted by the Commissioner was that, the tenants M\/s United Technical Co. Pvt, Ltd., and M\/s Khemka Aviation Pvt. Ltd. had provided interest security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 10.50 lakhs, respectively, for obtaining lease of the property for indefinite period. The Commissioner after considering the main object of the company and also object Clause No. 4, as provided in the memorandum and articles of association of the company, was of the opinion that, the lease agreements indicate that the, property was let on rent and the object of the company also was to let properties, though it could also construct properties as per its object. He further observed that, there was no concerted business activity undertaken by the company in the letting of the properties. He was further of the opinion that, though one of the buildings was subsequently provided with the air-conditioning, and it being charged separately, it could not be said that the letting of the building and the air-conditioning was inseparable. He rejected the contention of the assessee that its case was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Sultan Bros’. case (supra), on the reasoning that, the lease agreement did contain any mention of the provision of the air-conditioning facility. He, therefore, concluded that the income from the building and the air-conditioning has to be assessed as income from property only. In so far as 11 Saket Community Center was concerned, since it did not contain any air-conditioning, he felt that it did not pose any problem and it had to be assessed as income from property only. On the issue of claim of deduction of interest, he observed that, even when the interest of Rs. 3,27,327 is to be allowed, then also, the income assessable would not be less than Rs. 34,080 as determined presently by the assessing officer. He did not allow depreciation on the building and the air-conditioner due to his conclusion that the income is assessable as income from property. He also did not allow the house tax, without assigning any reason, though he had observed that, the lease agreement provided for the tenant to bear any additional house tax to be levied after a period of five years. He strongly relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tinsukhia Development Corpn. Ltd.’ s case (supra), for the proposition that, though the companies objects may provide for the development of landed properties, but if its activity involves letting of buildings owned by it, the income therefrom is assessable as income from property only.\n<\/p>\n
7. The main controversy is whether the letting of the building initially, and followed by the letting of the air-conditioning facility to the same tenant could be said to be inseparable and whether, there exists any material to indicate the intention of the assessee and its lessee for the appellant company should provide the air-conditioning facility also as part of the lease. The principle for determination of the intention between the two parties is to be gathered from the direct evidence, such as agreement and other material such as correspondence exchanged by the parties and their actions and if not directly available, could be gathered from other factors, which throw light on the transaction.\n<\/p>\n
It is not disputed that, the lease-deed is silent on this intention of the provision of the air-conditioning facility as a part of the deal, but, considering the volume of cost on the air-conditioning which is Rs. 6,07,705 incurred by the appellant company, it could be taken as sufficient indication of the intention by the lessee to take the building on lease subject to the assessee providing the air-conditioning facility. If it was not so required and insisted upon then, there was no necessity for the appellant company to incur a cost of Rs. 6,07,705 on the air-conditioning plant. This factor of assessee incurring the cost and mentioning in the lease deed of the air-conditioning facility about the earlier lease agreement of the building and then stating that, the lessee shall additional lease rent of Rs. 12,000 for this facility, is sufficient indication of the intention of providing of the composite unit of building and air-conditioning on lease. Considering also the factor of the volume of the cost of the air-conditioning facility, it is indicative that it is so built up that, the building could be let only with that facility and not without it. Therefore, they would become inseparable from one another, thus retaining the character of a composite unit. The income from such composite unit could not be assessed as income from property, because, it no longer remains merely a building but something else. The fact of this kind of composite letting came to be examined by the Supreme Court in Sultan Bros.’ case (supra). Supreme Court had observed that, separate lease deed of the building and the furniture is not the deciding factor, but what needs to be considered is the intention between the parties, as to whether, it goes to indicate that, the letting was inseparable from one another and if it was so, then, notwithstanding the fact that separate lease agreements were entered into by the parties, the nature of the unit being composite could not be changed. As observed above, the intention as was gathered from the action by the parties indicate that, the assessee had intended to provide the air-conditioning facility and the lessee also desired for such a provision, the separate lease-deed for the building and the air-conditioning facility, based on the stages of completion, should not deter from the actual fact of it being a composite unit. Accordingly, the income from No. 6 Saket Community Center for the assessment year 1986-87, cannot be assessed under the head income from property.\n<\/p>\n
Since for the assessment year 1985-86, the air-conditioning plant was under construction, this action of construction, followed by the completion and it being leased out along with the building in assessment year 1986-87, goes to indicate that, the intention of providing of the air-conditioning facility as part of the deal did exist right from the beginning. But, this by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the income from the property for the assessment year 1985-86 should not be assessed under the head income from property. To assess the income under any other head other than income from property, it requires the existence of that property which must also have been let as part of the deal along with the building, making the property and the facility inseparable. The character of inseparability arises from the existence of the properties, viz., building, plant, machinery or plant, followed by they being let together resulting in any inseparable letting, i.e., one could not be assessed without the other. Therefore, for the assessment year 1985-86, since it was letting of the building only, indicating that it was capable of being letting without the air-conditioning facility, the income from the property could not be assessed under any other head other than property.\n<\/p>\n
7.1 At this point, it would be necessary to bring out the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros, (supra). The Supreme Court had observed, thus :\n<\/p>\n
Whether a particular letting is business has to be decided in the circumstances of each case. Each case has to be looked from a businessman’s point of view to find out whether letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property as owner. A thing is not by its very nature a commercial asset. A commercial asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else, and business may be carried on with practically all things. Therefore, it is not possible to say that a particular activity is business because it is concerned with an asset with which trade is commonly carried on.\n<\/p>\n
When a building and plant, machinery or furniture are inseparably let the Income-tax Act contemplates the rent from the building as a residuary head of income and not one to be computed under Section 9.\n<\/p>\n
There is no warrant for saying that Section 12(4) of the Income-tax Act contemplates that the primary letting should be machinery, plant or furniture, and that the letting of the building has to be incidental to the letting of the plant, machinery or furniture. The letting of the building can never be incidental to the letting of the furniture contained in it, and therefore no consideration of primary and secondary letting arises in construing the section; what must apply when furniture is let and also buildings must equally apply when plant and machinery are let out and also buildings. All that Section 12(4) contemplates is that the letting of the machinery, plant or furniture should be inseparable from the letting of the building.\n<\/p>\n
The term ‘inseparablity’ in that section does not contemplate either that the machinery, plant or furniture should by its nature be inseparable from the building, so that the building has also necessarily to be let along with it, or that the plant, machinery or furniture is fixed to the building. The inseparability referred to in Section 12(4) is one that arises from the intention of the parties. The intention may be ascertained by framing the following questions : was it the intention in making the lease – and it matters not whether there is one lease or two, that is, separate leases in respect of the furniture and the building – that the two should be enjoyed together? Was it the intention to make the letting of the two practically one letting? Would one could have been let alone, and if a lease of it accepted, without the other? If the answers to the first two questions are in the affirmative, and the last in the negative, then it has to be held that it was intended that the letting would be inseparable.\n<\/p>\n
As observed earlier, the fact in the present case indicate that, the intention between the parties was to enjoy the building and the air-conditioning facility as one composite letting and it is impossible to enjoy the facility of air-conditioning without the building, thus the inseparable character is established, in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has observed that, whether the letting of the building with the plant was the assessee’s business or not must be judged from the point of view of the businessman. The businessman’s point of view could be derived from his objects of business, which in the present case must be evident from the objects clauses of the Company’s memorandum and articles of association.\n<\/p>\n
The main object of the Company reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
To acquire by purchase and sell through lease, exchange, hire or otherwise lands and properties of any tenure or interest therein, to erect, construct houses, buildings or works of every description and pull down, rebuild, enlarge, alter, improve existing houses and buildings, to construct and appropriate any such land into and for roads, streets, gardens and other convenience and generally to deal with and improve the property of the company and to own let out and manage properties for the benefit of its members.”\n<\/p>\n
“To sublet, exchange, mortgage, rent, lease, such lease, surrender, accept surrender, accept lease tenancy or sub-tenancy buildings, tenements, flats, blocks, shops, godown, garage, through own agency and throughout contracts.\n<\/p>\n
The above objects indicate that, the business which the company could carry on could be any one of the above or the combination of one with the other or several. One of the activity is to improve the property of the company and to own, let out and manage properties for the benefit of its members. The assessee-company which was incorporated on March 18,1981, had entered its first of the activity of getting the two plots on lease from DDA and had started construction of the two buildings, which were completed in July 1984. These two properties were let and it had not ventured into any other activity. This indicates that, the company by virtue of its objects had only improved its property and managed its properties for the benefit of its members. This activity is akin to exploitation of the commercial asset, rather than to deal in that asset. Therefore, the income from the property with the air-conditioning facility could not be said to be its business activity and thereby, the income earned therefrom could not be assessed as income from business. The income from the composite unit, viz., building and the air-conditioning, of 6 Saket Community Center for the assessment year 1986-87 is assessable under the head income from other sources only, as provided by Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provision is identical to Section 12(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. As a consequence, the assessee would be entitled to get depreciation on the building and the air-conditioning, deduction for house tax, ground rent, interest on borrowed funds to the extent they are relatable to the income from 6 Saket Community Center.\n<\/p>\n
The income from 6 Saket Community Center for the assessment year 1985-86 is assessable as income from property only, because of non-existence of any air-conditioning facility and it being not capable of being let in that assessment year for it was still under construction.\n<\/p>\n
In respect of 11 Saket Community Center, the facts are different from 6 Saket Community Center, in the sense that, there is no provision of any air-conditioning facility nor there is even any such facility under construction. Therefore, the income from 11 Saket Community Center remains income from property simpliciter and is assessable as such only.\n<\/p>\n
The assessee would be entitled to all the deductions as are contemplated under Sections 23 and 24 of the Income-tax Act. The net income from property could be a loss as well, because, it is only when the assessee claims the blanket deduction for newly constructed residential building, that the allowable deduction cannot exceed the income. The assessee shall be entitled to all deductions such as house tax, ground rent, interest on borrowed amounts as per law, in arriving at the income from 6 Saket Community Center for the assessment year 1985-86 and 11 Saket Community Center for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.\n<\/p>\n
Before parting, it is necessary to make this observation that, the principle enunciated by the Calcutta High Court in Tinsukhia Development Corpn. Ltd.’ s case (supra) that, the depiction of the income in the books of an assessee is irrelevant especially when the Income-tax Act has provided specific heads under which the respective income would become assessable, is not at all in dispute in the present appeals. Strictly viewed, the assessee’s prayer is also based on this ruling in a way because, of its composite or inseparable building from the air-conditioning plant, which is distinct from mere income from property, which is so specifically provided in Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court ruling in Snam Progetti S.P.A.’s case (supra), the observation was to the effect, that, merely because the Income-tax Act provided for assessing a particular source of income under a specific head, it does not change the character of the activity of the assessee from business to non-business. It is not denied that, the object of the company permits it to carry on the business of letting of properties, but in view of the Income-tax Act providing for specific heads under which the various incomes are assessable, the incomes of the company needs to be assessed only under those heads. Though leasing of property is a business activity, as observed by the Supreme Court in Sultan Bros.’ case (supra), if it were mere exploitation of the commercial asset, then it remains a mere income from property. The activity of the company indicated that, it was exploitation of the commercial asset and therefore, the income from the building could not be said to be income from the business.\n<\/p>\n
The order of the Commissioner for both the assessment years stands modified to the extent of the observation above.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeals are allowed in part.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 38 ITD 28 Delhi Bench: A Kalyanasundharam ORDER A. Kalyanasundharam, Accountant Member 1. These are two appeals by the assessee, a limited company, aggrieved by the revisionary orders passed by the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nNew India Construction Co. (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Construction Co. (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-19T00:05:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-19T00:05:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\"},\"wordCount\":4113,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\",\"name\":\"New India Construction Co. (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-19T00:05:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New India Construction Co. (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Construction Co. (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-19T00:05:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991","datePublished":"1991-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-19T00:05:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991"},"wordCount":4113,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991","name":"New India Construction Co. (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 April, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-19T00:05:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-construction-co-p-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-on-22-april-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Construction Co. (P.) … vs Assistant Commissioner Of … on 22 April, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}