HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. M/s Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi
Civil Appeal Nos. 1225–1230 of 1990
[1998] 3 SCR 197 ·
32(1) (reporter classification; depreciation issue) · 256(2)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · Sujata V. Manohar, J. · M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
Assessment years: 1973-74, 1974-75, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81
01 · Facts of the case
The company bought an existing residential building at 18–20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in 1961. Under an agreement of 21 October 1962 it paid Rs 3,65,875 as commercialisation charges for the then-existing 51,198-square-foot built-up area, in addition to ground rent. In 1965-66 it demolished that building and put up a new multistoreyed building, completed around 1973 (physical page 2/SCR 198).
Under the 5 March 1973 indenture it paid a further Rs 36,96,516, separately from additional ground rent, for commercial use of the additional built area. It included that sum in building cost and claimed depreciation. The six appeals concerned AYs 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78 through 1980-81. The first two years’ allowances had been reopened and disallowed; AYs 1975-76 and 1976-77 were allowed and no appeals for them were filed. CIT(A), the Tribunal and the High Court supported inclusion in building cost for the contested years (physical pages 2–4).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court examined what the additional payment purchased under the indenture. The land had already been converted to commercial use in 1962. The later premium related to the additional constructed space, described as 345,144 square feet for office purposes, while the additional land ground rent was a separate amount. It was therefore part of the cost incurred in putting up the business building (physical pages 3–4).
Revenue relied on Alps Theatre, which distinguished non-depreciable land from depreciable building cost. The Court did not reject that distinction. It held that it did not resolve this different question: whether the particular additional payment belonged in the building’s cost. On the indenture and existing-use facts, the High Court’s answer was correct (physical page 4).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
All six Revenue appeals were dismissed with costs. The inclusion of Rs 36,96,516 in the cost of the building for depreciation was sustained. The Court gave no depreciation rate, year-by-year tax computation or costs amount, and did not adjudicate the unappealed intervening years (physical page 4/SCR 200).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Assessee
Six Revenue appeals dismissed with costs
Final classification of the specified premium as building cost for the six appealed years
Depends on the identified indenture and pre-existing commercial land use; does not permit depreciation on land itself or automatically classify all land-use premiums as building cost.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Trace each payment to the right or facility actually obtained. Preserve the original land-use conversion, the later permission for additional building space and ground rent as separate transactions. The commercial-use label and payment to a public lessor do not, by themselves, settle whether cost attaches to land or building.
The Court sustained classification of the specified premium, not a general depreciation rate or a new rule for every conversion charge. Keep the six litigated years distinct from the two years in which no appeals were filed. Any later statutory definition, block-of-assets rule or judicial treatment requires a separate check.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity, six appeals and precise appealed years
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Earlier conversion, reconstruction and 1973 indenture
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 2; 3
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Unappealed years and land/building competing classifications
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 3; 4
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Additional-space reasoning, Alps Theatre distinction and dismissal
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 4
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- judicial text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Court (reasoned order; no individual author named)Act identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 4 PDF pages; SHA-256 dccbad9839f96a41f36739084e360de07730478fd56ebb00c98e90dcddf305f3. Original bytes preserved. Complete unnumbered judicial order physical pages 2–4/SCR 198–200; all 4 source pages read. Editorial cover distinguished.
- The source covers six appeals, Nos. 1225–1230 of 1990, and six stated assessment years. The raw machine index lists only the lead appeal.; AYs 1975-76 and 1976-77 were expressly not appealed and are not included as disposed-of Supreme Court merits years.; Rs 3,65,875 is the earlier commercialisation payment; Rs 36,96,516 is the disputed later premium. Additional ground rent is separate and is not quantified here.; The 51,198-square-foot earlier area and 345,144-square-foot additional office space are stated separately in the source. No invented total area or premium allocation is calculated.; The decision distinguishes Alps Theatre’s question without authorising depreciation on the underlying land. Costs are awarded but unquantified.
Statutory scope
No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant year.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Comprehensive subsequent judicial and statutory treatment has not been verified. Only the expressly identified bounded comparisons have been checked. No current-law or Income-tax Act, 2025 mapping is certified.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 4 pages
SHA-256: dccbad9839f96a41f36739084e360de07730478fd56ebb00c98e90dcddf305f3
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.