Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Ram Bagh Palace Hotel P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]303ITR178(Delhi)

1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated December 15, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in I.T.A. No. 2506/Del./99 relevant to the assessment year 1995-96.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and are of the view that a short but substantial question of law arises in this appeal and that it may be appropriate if the matter is disposed of at this stage. Learned Counsel for the parties have no objection if the matter is taken up for final disposal immediately.3. The two substantial questions of law that arise for consideration are:(a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without going into the nature of the items of expenditure and without giving any basis or reason for the same?(b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to the items of expenditure which were not even challenge...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Videon

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]301ITR260(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 16, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 3887/Del/2004 relevant to the assessment year 1993-94.The assessed had filed its return of income wherein it had disclosed a capital gain of Rs. 19,45,920 from the sale of land. Thereafter, the assessed filed a revised return wherein it claimed that the capital gain shown earlier was exempt from tax being agricultural land. This was on the basis of an advise received by it from the concerned Tehsildar as well as information received from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Assessing Officer did not accept the withdrawal of capital gain.2. The assessed then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was allowed.The Revenue then took up the matter before the Tribunal and the matter was remanded on the file of the Assessing Officer for a reconsideration of the matter.When the matter was taken up by the Assessi...

Shikha Bhatia Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complainant is widow of Mr. Deepak Bhatia who died in a car accident on 24.1.1996. He was holder of Citi Bank Diners Club Card issued by O.P. No. 3/Citi Bank. As per this Card insurance cover of Rs. 5 lacs against accident was covered. Insurance cover was issued by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Complainant filed a claim against insurance cover on 22.4.1996. Besides other documents, legal heirship certificate on the format provided by O.P. No. 3/Citi Bank duly notarised on Rs. 10 non-judicial stamp paper was also submitted. O.P. No. 2 raised piecemeal objections and by one of their communications dated 27th March, 1996 the O.P. No. 2 laid down unconstitutional condition that all the documents in vernacular be submitted in English signed by the translator and attested by a Notary Public. Hindi version of the FIR was also submitted. Heirship certificate from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was also submitted to O.P. No. 2 but it rejected the same second time and direc...

Bhagwati International and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC234

1. By these applications, the applicants have prayed for modification/ Rectification of Mistake of the interim order, under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. By the interim stay order dated 17.4.06, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that the applicants should deposit 50% of the amount of penalty imposed on them in each case, failing which the appeal of the defaulting party will stand dismissed. The compliance was required to be made on 6.6.06.Admittedly, no pre-deposits have been made and the condition of interim stay order has not been fulfilled, as a result of which the appeals have stood dismissed. However, since these applications were presented on 2.6.06, i.e. before the last date for compliance and could not be heard before that date, we have considered the applications.2. These applications are purported to have been filed under Section 129B(2), which by its nature cannot be invoked for rectification of mistake in interim order, beca...

Mayank Marble Industries and Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for rectification of mistake filed by the applicant for rectifying the mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 02/02/2005 and miscellaneous order dated 11/11/2005. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. The applicant's application for rectification of mistake is against the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the settled law on the issue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I find that identical argument was taken by the applicant counsel in the earlier application of rectification of mistake. This Tribunal in its order dated 11/11/2005 at paragraph '4' has held as under: The issue on which rectification is sought was not taken up at the time of hearing of appeal by the learned advocate, Shri Vipul Raheja, who appeared during hearing of appeal. He dropped this ground and only contested the appeal on imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The Final Order No. A/164-165/2005 dated 02/02/2005 was dict...

B.D. Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC191

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed the applicant in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in writ-petition No. 4082 (MS) 05.2. The Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the writ-petition has directed the Tribunal in the following terms: Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 3 to consider and dispose of the applications submitted by the petitioner on 20/05/2005, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 13 of this writ petition, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if it has not already been disposed of.3. As can be seen from the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the High Court had directed the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the applications filed by the petitioner (applicant before me) on 20^th May, 2005.4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the application for rectification ...

Cce Vs. Sadashiv Metallics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC133

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by the revenue against order of the Tribunal dated 25/04/05.2. The learned DR submits that the Tribunal has erred and not considering the material which was placed by the revenue when the appeal was heard and disposed off. The learned advocate, on the other hand submits that, the Tribunal had considerably heard the matter and gone through the record and has come to the conclusion at the end of such deliberations.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. I find that the application moved by the revenue is basically not pointing out the factual mistake, apparent on the face of the order.The order passed by the Tribunal is a judgment based on the records and submissions made before it at the time of hearing. Application for rectification of mistake should be apparent on the face of the order, there should not be any labour to point out the mistake. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Co...

Dy. Cit Vs. Chintels India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals by the revenue for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 are directed against order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding rental income received by the assessee from a property as business income. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to treat the rental income from House Property as income from business as against income from house property assessed by the assessing officer." 3. On scrutiny of accounts of the assessee for the period relevant to assessment year 1996-97, the assessing officer found that rental income of Rs. 6,44,198 has been set off and adjusted against business losses.He was, however, of the view that assessee being owner of house property, its rental income was liable to be computed under the head, "Income from house property". In this connection, the assessing officer referred to decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v.National Storage (P) Ltd.CIT v. National Storage (P) Ltd. . According to the assessing officer as p...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. St. Pauls Sr. Secondary School

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun dated 13-2-2004. The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant society was registered under the Societies Registration Act and has been imparting education to children. The appellant, society claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The assessing officer observed that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is available to such other educational institutions which were akin to a university in stature, management, regulatory mechanism, standard of education etc. The assessing officer doubted whether a school run by the appellant society was eligible to be covered under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as an institution. Further, the Assessing officer observed that the main object of the appellant society was t...

Naresh Ahlawat Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT46; 2007(2)SLJ250(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging an order granting only 50% back wages during the period of his suspension has been dismissed.2. The petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in the MTNL. He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 268/1985 for an offence punishable under Section 376/302 of the IPC. He was on that basis placed under suspension in September 1985. An Additional Sessions Judge before whom the petitioner was tried for the offences aforementioned, eventually convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment holding that the charge of rape with murder was established against the petitioner.3. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of conviction and sentence, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted the petitioner in terms of a judgment dated 4th October, 1993. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner r...