Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

Smt. Uma Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Sh. Rajesh Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT317

ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Mohan Lal is the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. He was the husband of defendant no. 4. During his life time he is alleged to have done well in life and acquired many properties besides inheriting from his father Gopi Nath Gupta. Mohan Lal died intestate in 1975. Plaintiffs who are the daughters of the deceased Mohan Lal have filed the present suit for a partition and rendition of accounts.2. It is alleged that after the death of Mohan Lal the parties to the suit inherited the property of the deceased. Each of them is entitled to 1/7th share in the assets of Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal is stated to have left the following properties and assets:(i) M/s Gopi Nath Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s Gopinath Mohan Lal Pvt. Ltd. (iii) M/s Shree Mohan Lal & Company (iv) Plot of 10,000 sq. yds of land with partially constructed at 19/92 Sarai Rohilla, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi (v) Plot of Land measuring 4850 sq yds. with Construction thereupon and under the tenancy o...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagat Construction Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)648; [2002]253ITR177(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN375(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessed-company is an industrial company as defined in Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979, and if so whether the assessed-company is entitled to a concessional rate of tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,60,128 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of investment allowance ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1979-80 for which the previous year ended on October 31, 1978.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed derived i...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Karni Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)519; [2002]256ITR165(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN378(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail to answer the following question which has been referred at the instance of the Revenue, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (for short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the case of the assessed ?' The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the fair market value of the property was Rs. 11 lakhs as declared by the assessed or as shown in the sale deed. The ratio of the decision of the apex court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO : [1981]131ITR597(SC) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. thereforee, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against ...

Cit Vs. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Del)358; [2001]250ITR475(Delhi); [2001]120TAXMAN795(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJx. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench U, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the present case and thereby exempting the assessed from tax under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76. An identical question came up for consideration in the assessed's own case in IT Reference Nos. 334 of 1978 and 97 of 1980 for the assessment years 197374 and 1974-75. By judgment dated 16-2-2001 the question was answered in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. That being the position, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.3. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]256ITR179(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN464(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was inapplicable to the sales of two properties for the purpose of computing capital gains on the basis of the market value of the properties as on the date of transfer ?'3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail in view of the following finding recorded by the Tribunal :'It is not the case of the Revenue, that the assessed had received an amount of consideration over and above what was stated in the registered sale deeds. There is also no dispute that the sale transactions were effected to abso...

Cit Vs. Riviera Apartments Construction Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN379(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard.2. Following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' pursuant to directions given by this court in ITC No. 143 of 1980 on 14-4-1982 under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in continuing registration of the firm when the order granting registration for the year 1971-72 was still under challenge in other proceedings ?'3. Following the views expressed by this court in IT Reference No. 115 of 1981OPEN...

Cit Vs. Sir Shri Ram Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN380(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. At the instance of the revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to give a finding that the assessed was not covered by section 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act or any other provision of section 13 and thereby allowing its claim for exemption from tax of its dividend income under section 11 of the Income Tax Act ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice. An identical question was considered in the assessed's own cases for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Following the view expressed in the connected cases, i.e., IT Reference Nos. 307, 308 of 1978 and 337 of 19803. T...

D.L.F. Universal Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN373(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, CJ. Heard.2. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation amount of Rs. 11,96,351 received by the assessed for the acquisition of its agricultural lands by the government, was assessable to tax as the profits of the assessed's business ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs. 11,96,351 was its agricultural income and as such exempt from income-tax ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the character of the assessed's agricultural lands changed from stock-in-trade and the same stood sterilized and was converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ?4. Whether, on the facts an...

M/S. Super Polypack Limited and Vs. Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Super Polypack Limited have filed this application stating that a mistake has crept in, in the Tribunal's Final Order No. 694-97/2000 dt. 22.8.2000 inasmuch as the Tribunal in its final order in the case of Shivalik Agro Poly Products reported in 2000 (40) RLT 465 held that penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not imposable when modvat credit available in respect of the inputs is higher than the duty payable on the final products.2. None appeared for the applicants. However, they given written submissions stating the above facts.3. Shri M.D. Singh, ld. SDR appears for the respondent Commissioner and submits that there is no mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order inasmuch as the issue was examined by the Tribunal but the facts is the two cases being different, the view was taken.4. We have heard the ld.DR. We have also perused the written submissions. We find that in para 17 of the Final Order, the Tribunal held that "In regard to limitation, we note that...

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. Bhel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal filed this application stating that a mistake has occurred in the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/920/2000 dt. 17.10.2000 inasmuch as the Tribunal in the Final Order in para five held that "We note that in the instant case, a SCN was issued by the Range Superintendent. We note that the Range Superintendent is not the proper officer in terms of Rule 57I read with Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 2. Shri M.D. Singh, ld.SDR submits that the Range Superintendent is the proper officer for issuing SCN under Rule 57I. He submits that since the Range Superintendent was the proper officer for issuing of SCN, the Tribunal has held otherwise, therefore, the mistake is apparent. He, therefore, prays that the mistake may be rectified.3. Shri Z. U. Alvi, ld.Advocate submits that before the Tribunal its was argued that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued instructions that the SCN should be issued by an officer who has to adjudicate t...