Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 11 of about 208 results (0.016 seconds)Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reebok India Company
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)976
1. This appeal arises from the order of learned CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi, vide his order dt. 21st Sept., 2004 for the asst. yr. 2003-04. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand of Rs. 1,30,73,791 as per the order of the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961, by concluding that the transactions between the manufacturers/vendors and the deductor company are the transactions of sale and purchase on a principal to principal basis and not the transactions of contract covered under Section 194C of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the detector company has full control over the manufacturing activities, raw material supply, patterns, specifications, samples, prices of the products and sale of the products, apart from other elements in regard to whole venture of manufacturing and subsequent alleged sales thereof. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Acit Vs. Late Virender Singh Through L/H
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Delhi)562
1. A short but interesting question which arises in this case is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest paid to the banks while computing the income from house property.2. The assessee owned 1.5% share in a building known as Choudhary Building in K-Block Connaught Circus, New Delhi. It was let out to May & Baker for rent. The assessee and the other co-owners entered into an agreement with May & Baker on9.11.96 to get the property vacated for a total consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000. The said company accepted the payment of the aforesaid amount and surrendered its tenancy right in order to make the payment the assessee had borrowed monies from Karnataka Bank and Lord Krishna Bank in respect of which interest had to be paid. The interest was claimed as a deduction by the assessee while computing the income from the said building under the head "income from house property". The claim was made under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Virender Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)104ITD365(Delhi)
1. A short but interesting question which arises in this case is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest paid to the banks while computing the income from house property.2. The assessee owned 1.5 per cent share in a building known as Choudhary Building in K-Block Connaught Circus, New Delhi. It was let out to May & Baker for rent. The assessee and the other co-owners entered into an agreement with May & Baker on 9-11 -1996 to get the property vacated for a total consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000. The said company accepted the payment of the aforesaid amount and surrendered its tenancy rights. In order to make the payment the assessee had borrowed monies from Karnataka Bank and Lord Krishna Bank in respect of which interest had to be paid. The interest was claimed as a deduction by the assessee while computing the income from the said building under the head "Income from house property". The claim was...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Payal Kapur Vs. Asstt. C.i.T.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)690
1. This is a bunch of seven appeals (six by the revenue in ITA Nos. 3 740/D/04 3759 to 3762/D/04 and, 4658/D/04 and one by assessee in ITA No. 1468/D/05) directed against the respective orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for. the assessment year 2001-02. These seven appeals arise from the respective orders passed by CIT (Appeals)-XXVI, CIT(Appeals)-VII and CIT(Appeals)-XIII. So far as the appeal by the assessee M/s Payal Kapur is concerned the same arises from the order of CIT (Appeals)-XXIII, who has taken a view contrary to the view taken by the other two CIT (Appeals). The latter has rejected the appeals of the assesses. However, the issue involved in all these appeals is identical and common. Accordingly these appeals were all heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Even learned representatives of parties addressed us with reference to appeal by Smt. Payal Kapur.2. In the instant appeals, all the seven assessees'...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Jeet Kanwar Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)6SOT340(Delhi)
This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1997-98 directed against order of CIT (Appeals) confirming addition made in the hand of the assessee.The facts of the case briefly stated are that the assessee filed return disclosing income of Rs. 14,28,255 besides long-term capital gains of Rs. 25,06,535. The dispute in the present appeal relates to long-term capital gains shown by the assessee which was claimed as per following details : Nistha Finance & Investment (I) Ltd. relating to Master Abhayjeet Kanwar (minor son) The assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings asked the assessee to furnish details of share transactions and found that sale of shares of Chirau Finance Investment & Leasing Co. (CFIL) Ltd. was carried through Stock Broker M/s. J.K. Jain & Company. The other shares of M/s. Nishtha Finance and Investment (NFI) (India) Ltd. were sold through Stock Broker M/s. Rekha and Co. The assessing officer issued summons to these Brokers. The summon...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Kumar and ors. Vs. Shri Ashwini Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT397
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners Rekha Gosain, Raman Kumar, Sunita Nangia and Lokesh Sharma were employed on casual basis as Work Assistants (Demonstrator and Fitter) by Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA), an undertaking of the Government of NCT Delhi. The said post is 'Group-C' post.2. They were relieved vide orders dated 31.6.1998 stating that their services were no longer required.3. They Along with a few other similarly situate persons filed writ petitions in this court. The two writ petitions filed were numbered as WP(C) No. 5418/198 and 410/1998.4. On 7.11.2001, the writ petitions were disposed of. Claim for regularization and quashing of the orders dispensing their services were rejected. However, directions were issued that a list of all group (C) and (D) employees would be circulated to all heads of various departments as also autonomous bodies and societies under Delhi Government with a direction from the Principal Secretary (Services) that the persons in the list shou...
Tag this Judgment!Bina Modi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT489; 2005(85)DRJ385
T.S. Thakur, J.1. These writ petitions are destined to dismissal not only because the petitioners, as purchasers subsequent to the notifications, do not have the locus standi to challenge the same but also because the challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings comes 25 years after the issue of the preliminary notification. The facts are few and may be summarised as under:2. A large extent of land situate in different villages in South Delhi including that in village Sahurpur was notified for acquisition for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi' as early as in November, 1980. A Declaration under Section 6 followed on 7th June, 1985 and an award in May, 1987. Four years thereafter, the land in question was sold by the owners concerned in favor of the petitioners herein in terms of different instruments all executed on 27th February, 1991. The petitioners claim to have applied for grant of building permission to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raising c...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT376; 2005(85)DRJ544
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three writ petitions are taken up for hearing together as the petitioners are co-owners of the land comprised in Khasra No. 10/30 of Village Sahipur. The extent of their land is 13 Bighas and 9 Biswas. In CWP 3184/2000 several grounds have been raised for challenging the Notification under Section 4 dated 13.11.1959 and the Declaration under Section 6 dated 12.7.1966. One of the grounds taken was that the petitioner's agricultural land/nursery could not be acquired and that the possession alleged to have been taken on 18.1.2000 was merely a paper possession and should not be taken as possession within the meaning of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). Similar is the position in CWP 4101/2000. In CWP 7839/1999 similar grounds have been taken but additionally it has been urged that the Government did not have any definite plan or proposal for development and it is for this reason that the acquisition pro...
Tag this Judgment!Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT445; 2005(85)DRJ580
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus, directing the respondents to refund to the petitioner with interest a sum of Rs. 1,65,710/-, in terms of an assessment order dated 14th July, 1980, relevant to assessment year 1976-77. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under:2. The petitioner-company is running a hotel in Delhi and is registered as a dealer under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1976-77, the respondent-assessing authority completed the assessment proceedings in terms of an order of assessment dated 14th July, 1980. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1978) 42 STC 386, the assessing authority held that while sales made to non-residents were exigible to sales tax those made to residents in the hotel were not. It accordingly finalised the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Pacific Convergence Coproation Ltd. Vs. Data Access (India) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(2006)BC288; 125(2005)DLT337; 2005(85)DRJ701
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands and having its correspondence address at Hong Kong. The business of the petitioner is to provide a complete range of interactive and broadcast products to households in countries through Asia and the Middle East, by means of asymmetric, two way, interactive digital services provided to and through existing and new satellite television distributors.2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as `the company') which is an Indian company having its registered office in New Delhi, praying for its winding up under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act 1956 (for short `the Act'). The ground for winding up is the debt allegedly owed by the company to the petitioner which according to the petitioner, the company is unable to pay. The debt, as per the averments made in the petition, became due to it under the following circumstances:3. The p...
Tag this Judgment!