Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Asstt. Cit Vs. Ahuja Radios

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both these appeals are filed by the revenue. They are directed against two separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6-9-2006 for assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04 respectively.2. The grounds of appeal for assessment year 2001 -02 and assessment year 2003-04 read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 16,73,250 imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the assessee has claimed excessive deduction under Section 80HHC, i.e., deduction claimed at Rs. 5,46,21,266 whereas deduction was allowed at Rs. 5,04,15,932 and considering the fact that the department has not accepted the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals order for the assessment year 2001 -02 dated 25-8-2006 on which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon. 2. Any other ground that the appellant would raise during the course of appeal the amending, de...

ito Vs. Dr. Bobby Anand Chaurasia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 10-5-2007 for the assessment year 2002-03.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this case the assessee is a doctor. In the return of income his claim for HRA at Rs. 54,000was partly disallowed to the extent of Rs. 21,500. Similarly, addition was made on account of amount deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs. 3,50,656. After considering the contentions of the assessee and recording detailed finding, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both the additions. It was also argued by learned authorised representative that tax effect in the appeal filed by revenue is below Rs. 2 lakhs therefore, as per CBDT Circular No. 2, dated 24-10-2005, the department should not have filed the appeal. In the cross objection the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening under Section 147.3. With regard to claim on HRA,...

Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)299ITR161(Delhi)

1. The appeal has been referred to the Special Bench and the following question has been posed for decision: Whether in a case where the CIT does not pass the order granting or refusing registration of trust within the period laid down in Section 12AA(2) registration would be deemed to have been granted to the trust or institution automatically on expiry of the period specified in Section 12AA(2) of the Act? 2. A few basic facts may be stated now. The assessee is a charitable institution. It applied to the CIT for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act on 23rd Oct., 2001. Under Section 12AA(2) every order granting or refusing registration shall be passed by the CIT before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received by him. In the case before us the CIT ought to have passed an order granting or refusing registration on or before 30th April, 2002, He however passed the order refusing registration to the trust on 26th May, 2003 which was...

Kamal Mishra Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5-5-2006 for the assessment year 2002-03, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer found that the assessee was having income from various heads including house property. The assessee was owning four properties at Vasant Vihar, Delhi, flat at Haridwar and a farm house at Masudpur. The assessee did not show any income from flat at Haridwar. Regarding property at Vasant Vihar the assessee had claimed that it was let out till December 2000 and after that it was lying vacant till April 2000 (sic). As per Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 23 where a property which is let, remains vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable in respect thereof is less than ...

Pradeep Agencies-joint Venture Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)346

1. This Special Bench is constituted by the Hon'ble President under Section 255(3) for deciding the following question and also for the disposal of appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 13th Nov., 2006: Whether, the assessment made on the AOP is invalid, in the light of the Board's circular dt. 24th Aug., 1966 or is valid in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah and/or statutory amendments of the IT Act 2. Grounds of appeal as raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the finding of the AO that the commission income of Rs. 2,37,55,912 was taxable in the hands of the appellant in the status of AOP and not in the hands of the respective members of the joint venture. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) also erred in fact and in law in confirming the finding of the AO that the tax sh...

Vijay Power Generators Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1997-98 and is directed against the levy of penalty of Rs. 11,10,500/- imposed on it under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee is a company. During the year ended 31.3.1997, it received Rs. 25,23,500/- from 15 persons as share application money. In the assessment made under Section 144 on 28.3.2003, the amount was added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act on the ground that the genuineness of the transactions was not proved and the assessee did not render any evidence in support of the receipt of the share application money. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) but without any success and the further appeal to the Tribunal was also dismissed by order dated 23rd February 2005 in ITA No. 1670/Del/2004 3. After the order of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 read with Section 27l(1)(c) calling upon the assessee to explain why ...

Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Private Limited and anr. Vs. Green Vi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)279

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The National Dairy Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the NDDB) was initially registered as a society under the Societies Act, 1860. The said NDDB is stated to have been merged with Indian Dairy Corporation, a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 by the NDDB Act, 1987 w.e.f. 05.9.1988. The NDDB under its Operation Flood is stated to have set-up the Mother Dairy Delhi in 1974 as also the Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Project in the year 1988. In April, 2000, the NDDB transferred its rights, title and interest in these two projects to plaintiff no. 1 which had been set up as its 100% subsidiary. Plaintiff no. 1 is a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff no. 1 subsequently established plaintiff no. 2 as its 100% subsidiary on 24.5.2002. Thereafter the brands remained the ownership of plaintiff no. 1 while the same were licensed to plaintiff no. 2 for purposes of manuf...

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)204

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. An objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the present suit has been taken by the defendants. In paragraph 25 of the plaint it has been stated that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit by virtue of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as the plaintiff 'carries on business' through its branch office situated at B-317, Som Dutt Chamber-1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi within the territorial limits of this High Court. The objection raised by the defendants is that the expression 'carries on business' appearing in Section 62(2)(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 has to be understood in the manner indicated in the Explanationn to Section 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). It has been contended on behalf of the defendants that the said Explanationn clearly stipulates that a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principa...

Ms. Jainish Kumari Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ279(Delhi)

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Writ Petitioner Ms. Jainish Kumari has challenged the order of Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') dated 31st May, 2004 dismissing OA No. 2800 of 2003 observing that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications equivalent to B.Ed. Accordingly Tribunal declined to quash order No. PS/DE/ 2002/792-793 2002/792-793 dated 13.03.2002 and Order No. 6670 dated 20.06.2002 passed by the Directorate of Education.2. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred as 'DSSSB') had issued an advertisement on 12th June, 1998 inviting applications for filling up vacancies of the teachers including two posts of Post Graduate Teachers (Sanskrit) in the category of women. Petitioner who after completing her metriculation, had obtained the degree of Shastri from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and had obtained Diploma in Trai...

Shri Amit Sundra S/O Shri Satish Sundra, Vs. Ms. Sheetal Khanna W/O Sh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ66; I(2008)DMC58

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The appellant has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 1st August, 2007 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.2. The respondent herein had filed an application under Section 23 of The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Magistrate praying for grant of interim relief seeking therein her entry into the shared house hold at 7, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and also prayed for interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Magistrate directed the present petitioners to allow the respondent to enter into the aforesaid shared house hold at Delhi and stay over there under the prosecution of Protection Officer. Petitioners were also directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. However, it was made clear that this relief passed in the favor of the respondent shall not create any special equities in ...