revenue and assessee have filed these cross-appeals against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-2-1983 in assessee's appeal for assessment year 1979-80. In assessment proceedings before IAC, assessee had disclosed income from house property for period of seven months only up to 31-7-1978. IAC, however, found that property was sold and registration deed of property was dated 21-12-1978. According to him, title of property passed on 21-12-1978 on registration. Therefore, income from house property had to be included up to 21-12-1978. He accordingly, proceeded to determine assessee's income from house property up to 21-12-1978. 2. assessee appealed before Commissioner (Appeals) on one of grounds being that income from house property had been computed up t o 21-12-1978 on basis of registration of conveyance, though conveyance for sale of property had been executed on 4-8-1978. Having heard assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's reliance on section 47 of Indian Registration Act, 1908, that effect of registration of transfer deed of property would operate from date of sale, i.e., date of conveyance. According to him, though in case of immovable property, instrument of transfer had to be registered, effective transfer of title was date of relative deed and not date of registration. He, therefore, directed IAC to compute assessee's property income only up to 3-8-1978 for assessment year under consideration. 3. revenue is, therefore, in appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that property income was assessable only up to period of 4-8-1978, which was date of conveyance and not up to period 21-12-1978 which was date of registration. On this issue, learned departmental representative has relied on Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT v. Modern Flats (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 67 to effect that unless transfer deed was registered, ownership of property cannot be deemed to have passed to new owner. Further, reliance is placed on Delhi High Court decision in case of CIT v. Hans Raj Gupta [1982] 137 ITR 195, which is also to same effect. On behalf of assessee, reliance is placed on Gujarat High Court decision in case of Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 245, which is to effect that for purpose of levy of capital gains, transfer of property was completed on date of sale, i.e., date of conveyance and not date of registration. Further, reference is also made to Supreme Court decision in case of Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh AIR 1969 SC 244. Further reference is also made to another Supreme Court decision in case of Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747. Finally learned counsel for assessee has relied on Tribunal's decision in case of Sir Hirji Cawasji Jehangir v. GTO [1983] 3 ITD 132 (Bom.). At this stage, attention of learned counsel was invited to earlier decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Darbar Shivrajkumar v. CGT [1981] 131 ITR 647 where learned Judges had held that title of transferee did not relate back to date of execution of gift deed. date of completion of transfer of immovable property was on date of registration of conveyance deed. learned counsel was, however, unable to reconcile two decisions. 4. We have carefully considered facts and circumstances of case and arguments on either side. conveyance of property was executed o n 14-6-1978. It was lodged with Registrar on 4-8-1978. Registrar/registered it on 21-12-1978. question is up to what date assessee should be held to be owner of property for purposes of computation of property income in its hands, ie., whether on registration, legal consequences of deed related back to date of execution of deed. Under section 23 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act ') assessee is to be taxed in respect of income from property of which it was owner. We find that issue had come up before Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 249, wherein, after comprehensive review of case law, learned Judges of Bombay High Court have held that property income had to be taxed in hands of previous owner till conveyance deed was registered with Registrar. We find that while arriving at this decision, they have followed another decision of same High Court in case of CIT v. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 499. Even in this case, learned Judges of Bombay High Court were concerned with income from property. earlier decision of Bombay High Court in case or Modern Flats (P.) Ltd. is also to same effect. So also, Delhi High Court decision in case of Hans Raj Gupta was relied upon by learned departmental representative. As to case law cited on behalf of assessee, we find that Gujarat High Court decision in case of Arundhati Balkrishna is rendered in context of section 45 of Act as to when property was transferred. Further, as stated earlier, this decision does not take into consideration decision of same High Court in case of Darbar Shivrajkumar. Apparently, this is case in curium. In our opinion, in circumstances, we have to follow earlier decision in Darbar Shivrajkumar's case which is in conformity with Bombay High Court decisions in Modern Flats (P.) Ltd.'s case, Zorostrian Building Society Ltd.'s case and finally Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd.'s case. Supreme Court decision in case of Hiralal Agarwal is rendered in context of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Areas and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962. Supreme Court decision in case of Ram Saran is in connection with date on which person has to exercise right or pre-emption under Mohammedan law. These cases have no application to facts of present case. In our opinion, as stated earlier, considering latest decision of Bombay High Court in case or Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd., revenue is entitled to succeed. income from property is to be taxed in hands of assessee up to 21-12-1978. 5. In respect of aforesaid property, assessee had also objected before Commissioner (Appeals) to effect that though no rent was received during year, annual value had been taken on basis of rent received in past and not on basis of municipal rateable value of property. This issue was decided by Commissioner (Appeals) on terms of section 23(1), i.e., on basis of sum, for which property could reasonably be expected to let from year to year. For this purpose, Commissioner (Appeals) relied on rent recovered by assessee from property in immediately preceding year. 6. assessee is, therefore, in appeal against this decision of Commissioner (Appeals) on ground that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding order of IAC determining income from house property at in upholding order of IAC determining income from house property at R s . 28,000 as against Rs. 10,615 computed by assessee. It was assessee's case that since no rent was received during year, annual value of property under section 23 should be determined by taking municipal rateable value of property. Further, it was submitted that because of Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, no property can be reasonably expected to let from year to year above standard rent. standard rent should be adopted even if not specifically determined. While on this ground, learned counsel for assessee referred to fact that Income-tax Act was amended with effect from 1-1-1978. In this connection, reference is made to Calcutta High Court decision in case of CIT v. Prabhabati Bansali [1983] 141 ITR 419. learned departmental representative has relied on Calcutta High Court decision in case of CIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 637. 7. We have carefully considered facts and circumstances of case and arguments on either side. Under section 23, assessee is liable to pay income-tax in respect of annual value of property of which he is owner during year. Annual value of property would be deemed to be sum for which property could reasonably be expected to let from year to year. decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Prabhabati Bansali is rendered in context of Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and it has, therefore, no relevance to facts of present case. Here we are concerned with calendar year 1978. We find that law on subject has finally been laid down by Supreme C o u r t in case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1980] 122 ITR 700 and in case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435, where it has been laid down that ITO was under obligation to compute income from property on basis of standard rent. This is rent at which property could be expected to be let out from year to year. property in instant case is situated in city of Bombay, to which provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act would apply. Section 5(1)(10) of this enactment reads as under; " (10) ' standard rent ' in relation to any premises means--- (a) where standard rent is fixed by Court and Controller respectively under Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939 (Bombay XVI of 1939), or Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944 (Bombay VII of 1944) such standard rent or (b) where standard rent is not so fixed, subject to provisions of section 11: (i) rent at which premises were let on first day of September, 1940; or (ii) where they were not let on first day of September 1949, rent which they were last let before that day; or (iii) where they were first let after first day of September 1949, rent at which they were first let; or (iv) in any of cases specified in section 11, rent fixed by Court." We do not know what would be ' standard rent ' in case of property under consideration for relevant previous year. We, therefore, restore matter to IAC for ascertaining standard rent applying section 5(1)(10) and to include same in assessment. 8 to 13. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues. *** INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER v. B.I.C.C. LTD.