Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Natwar Lal Gupta Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)1006

ORDERB.R. Jain, A.M.This appeal by the assessed has been preferred against the order dated 1-9-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi, for assessment year 1097-98. In various 'grounds, the assessed has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 11,73,015 spent by the employer company on higher education of the appellant treating the same as perquisite under section 17(2)(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Shri Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for the assessed, stated that the appellant is a qualified CFA and was working in Nishigandha Trading (P) Ltd. since 1992. The company intended to diversify its business in the field of merchant Banking, advising of public issue of shares, debentures, portfolio management, etc. For this purpose, it was decided by the Board of Directors to send, inter alia, the appellant to the London Business School for MBA course with specialisation in finance, which knowledge and experience would benefit the company in its business. The entire cost of higher edu...

Kuldip Singh Ahlawat Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal directed against order dated 8.10.2004 whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed at the threshold on the ground that the Consumer Fora have no power/jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing of the flats is liable to be allowed at this stage itself in view of the plea of the appellant that the respondent has sold similar flats in the same locality at lower price than the price charged from him. Appellant also sought compensation on account of deficiency in service in delay in execution of conveyance deed as a result of which he had to pay enhanced stamp duty. 2. Consumers who are placed in similar situation have to be treated alike in the matter of price or articles purchased by them or flats sold to them by any agency. Consumer Fora may not be empowered to go into the question of pricing of the flats but they do have powers and jurisdiction to go into the question of unfair practice or deficiency in service arising from the discr...