Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Mrs. Madhu Kohli and anr. Vs. Mr. Suresh Khattar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT117; 2006(87)DRJ343

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff have filed a suit for partition, possession, recovery of damages for use and occupation, recovery of rent and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No. B-3/17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The property was owned by Mr.Hans Raj Khattar. Sh. Hans Raj Khattar was married to Smt. Kaushalya Rani Khattar and from the wedlock three children were born - two daughters and a son. The plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.2 are the daughters while defendant no.1 is the son. The plaintiff no.2 is the son of plaintiff no.12. Sh. Hans Raj Khattar passed away on 30.10.1990 and prior to his demise had executed a Will dated 16.06.1989. It may be noticed that there is no dispute about this Will, and in fact, probate in respect of this Will has already been granted by consent of all the legal heirs. Mrs Kaushalya Rani Khattar, his wife, passed away subsequently on 13.10.1998. 3. Sh. Hans Raj Khattar, as stated above, was the exclusive owner of the property beari...

Deepak Chhabra Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)102; [2006]154TAXMAN215(Delhi)

ORDERBy the CourtAggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, Shri Hans Raj Chhabra, the assessed-respondent in the appeal passed away on 1-2-1999. Shri K.R. Manjani, advocate, appearing for the assessed accordingly filed an application on 31-3-2003 before the Tribunal pointing out that the assessed had passed away leaving behind two legal representatives namely, Shri Deepak Chhabra, his son and Dr. Smt. Sheetal Jhamb, his daughter. The application went to the extent of making a prayer for substitution of Shri Deepak Chhabra in place of the deceased assessed, relying upon a similar order passed by the Tribunal in the wealth-tax appeals for the assessment year 1989-90. The Tribunal, however, did not advert to this application nor did it make any order of substitution of the LRs of the deceased assessed. By the order impugned in this appeal before us, the Tribunal eventually allowe...

Suman Kapoor and Sons Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant vide letter-dated 19.01.2006, made a request to decide the appeal on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant as time bar. The contention of the appellant in the present request is that the adjudication order dated 19.11.1998 was dispatched on 4.10.99 and, thereafter, it was received by the appellant and due to illness of the Karta of the Firm the appeal was filed on 22.02.2001. In these circumstances, the request of the appellant is that the delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) may be is condoned.3. As per the provisions of Section 128 of Customs Act, the adjudication order is to be challenged with in three months from the receipt of the order and Commissioner (Appeals) was empowered to condone the delay of another three months of showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. In the present case as admitted by the appellant that they have received the adjudi...

Cce Vs. Sardar Associates Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue for dropping the confiscation of the truck by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. It is the case of the Revenue that truck No. PB 10 N 9692 used for transportation of 10.220 MT of steel ingots on 28.3.01 cleared without any proper invoice and without payment of duty was confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. The claim of the owner of the truck that they were not aware of the issuance of any improper invoice and evasion of duty is no excuse as the goods were cleared from the factory without proper invoice and without payment of duty. The truck was intercepted during the course of transit check on G.T. Road at Khanna loaded with non alloy steel ingots at about 9.00 hrs. on 28.3.2001 about 40 K.M. from Ludhiana. The time for removal from the factory at Ludhiana is shown as 17.30 hrs. on 27.3.2001. It was argued that driver who is agent of the owner of the truck has accepted these facts. He could not explain why th...

All India Radio Commercial Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)8SOT513(Delhi)

These are three appeals by the assessee against three different orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for financial year 2001-02. Since identical grounds are involved in all these appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. Common grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are as under: "1. The appellant had not paid any commission to the advertising agencies and there was no requirement of any deduction of tax at source under section 194H.2. The advertising agencies never rendered any service of agency to Doordarshan Commercial Service. The use of the expressions, 'agency' and 'commission' is not decisive, when there was no principal-agent relationship between Doordarshan Commercial Service and the advertising agencies.3. The facts on record show that the relationship between Doordarshan Commercial Service and any advertising agency is between twoprincipals.4. The decisions of the High Court in CIT v. ...

Sukh Ram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD417(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circlc-2, New Delhi (Assessing Officer), dated 26-8-1997 passed under Section 158BC for the block period comprising of assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98 and a further period up to 16-8-1996.2. The assessee in the present case is an individual deriving income mainly from agriculture. He is also involved in active politics from the State of Himachal Pradesh and occupied the public offices in different capacities including that of State Minister of Communication, Government of India. A search and seizure operation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the residential premises of the assessee situated at Mandi and Delhi on 16-8-1996 which commenced early in the morning. Later on, authorized officers of the Income-tax Department also joined the CBI with a warrant of authorization issued under Section 132(1) apparently on the basis of information received f...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Eicher Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)369

1. This appeal filed by the Department relates to the asst. yr.1999-2000 and arises out of the assessment made on the assessee under Section 143(3) of the IT Act on 28th March, 2002. The assessee-respondent is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tractors, engines, motorcycles, gears and other components.2. The first ground is that the CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation of Rs. 2,69,700 ignoring the fact that the furniture and fixtures were not used by the assessee for its business. At the time of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to paras 4 and 5 of the order of the Tribunal, dt. 26th Aug., 2004 in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1997-98 in ITA No. 2863/Del/2001 in which this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. A copy of the order was also filed. A perusal of the assessment order for the year under appeal shows that the AO disallowed the depreciation on the basis of the reasons given by him in the ea...

Smc Share Brokers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Delhi)700

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 31st March, 2005.2. Shri Ved Jain, learned FCA and Ms. Rano Jain, chartered accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, learned CIT-Departmental Representative represented the Revenue.3. The assessee has taken as many as seven grounds in this appeal to challenge the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 31st March, 2005 for the block period from 1st April, 1990 to 3rd Aug., 2000. However, before taking up specific pleas raised by the assessee in various grounds of appeal, we consider it proper to narrate the background and facts relating to this matter which are as under: 4. The assessee company was a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange. It was carrying on the business of share broking and as such, it was engaged in the sale and purchase of shares on behalf of various clients. One such client on whose behalf shares were purchased and sold was M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd. 4.1 On ...

Sanjeev Sharma and ors. Vs. Shri Gurdeep Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT453

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') prayer made is to the effect that an independent arbitrator in pursuance to clause 12 of the Agreement to Sell (for short `the Agreement' ) dated 18th August, 2002 be appointed and disputes referred to him for adjudication.2. The petitioners claim that they are the bona fide purchasers of property No.35, Block 205-B, known as 8, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi measuring 330 sq.yds. According to them, the respondent had agreed to sell the aforesaid portion of the property to the petitioners for a total consideration of Rs.28 lacs vide Agreement dated 18th August, 2002. The petitioners paid a sum of Rs.6 lacs as earnest money. Rs.5 lacs was paid to the respondent on 18th August, 2002 and Rs.1 lacs was paid through post dated cheque and remaining consideration was to be paid on execution of lease deed. The respondent had ...

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Vs. C.C.E

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC88

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal which upholds the order wherein the appellants were denied the Modvat credit and penalty imposed on them.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellants are manufacturers of sugar in their factory and procured the inputs like Steel plates and dissolved acetylene gas for use in their factory. It is a admitted fact that the steel plates were used for the machinery repairs and the acetylene gas was used in the maintenance of the machinery which were worn out due to usage. The Modvat is sought to be denied to the appellant on the ground that the Steel plates are not inputs and are used for fabrication and are known as construction materials in the common trade parlance and the dissolved acetylene gas is used for the maintenance of the machinery.3. Heard the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. I find from the records that the appellants had taken a stand before both the authorities that the steel...