Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1762

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 08.07.2004 passed by the M.A.C.T., Delhi in MACT case No. 86/2004 whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, which was initially filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the said Act and then converted into one under Section 163-A, was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,09,000/- along with interest thereon @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization was awarded in favor of the claimants. The insurance company-appellant herein was held liable by the said impugned award to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants at first instance but at the same time a right was given to it to recover the said amount from the 'insured' i.e. respondent No. 7 herein.2. Brief facts resulting in filing of the present appeal may be summarized as follows:a) Lekh Raj, aged 40 years, husband of respondent No. 1 and father o...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Santosh Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR353(Delhi)

ORDER1. In this appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 17th February, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 2747/Del/2005 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. By the order under appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessed challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessed. The Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) .3. Admit.4. The following substantial question of law is framed for consideration: Whether, in view of the endorsement in the assessment order to the effect that penalty proceedings under Section 27...

Trend Setters Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi107

Kailash Gambhir, J.CM No. 12760/2007Allowed subject to all just exceptions.CM stands disposed of.CM (M) 1273/20071. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 151 CPC. The respondent/defendant had moved the said application under Section 151 CPC so as to place its written statement on record for defending the suit filed by the present petitioner on its merits. The said application of the respondent/defendant was allowed by the Trial Court and the written statement filed by the respondent was directed to be taken on record subject to imposition of costs of Rs. 4,000/-. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. I have heard Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Datta, learned Counsel for the respondent who has appeared at the admission stage. C...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]307ITR147(Delhi)

1. Despite service, no one appears for the respondent.2. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated January 27, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 1450/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1984-85. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order that there was either concealment or inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee.3. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, submits that in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) this court has taken the view that if the Assessing Officer does not record his satisfaction in the assessment order that penalty p...

Hari Om Agarwal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ891; AIR2008Delhi29

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the respondent(hereinafter called `` the insurer'` close) to reimburse the expenses incurred by him for his medical treatment, in accordance with the policy of insurance(hereinafter called `` mediclaim'`).2. The respondent is in the business of Insurance. The petitioner is a chartered accountant by profession. He was retained for the job carrying auditing the respondent's Division Office No. 7, Delhi. At that time, i.e May 2001 the insurer's agents/employees allegedly represented to petitioner that he should take an Individual Mediclaim Policy to cover his health. On a pointed query from petitioner that, if he could be insured, as he was a diabetic, a hypertensionand had undergone a cataract operation of an eye, he was assured by respondent's representative that he would be eligible for such a policy and that he had to furnish complete details of the medication being undergone by him at that point of time.3. The peti...

Bhupinder Chaudhary Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complainant-Gas Company has claimed compensation of Rs. 5,50,800 from the OP-Insurance Company on account of theft of LPG cylinders from its godown. 2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is running a business of supply of LPG cylinder under the name and style of M/s. Pearl Gas Service from the abovesaid address. He got insured the gas service under Liquid Petroleum Gas Traders Policy with the OP vide Policy No. 469728 dated 6.5.1997 valid upto 5.5.1998. A theft was committed at the godown of M/s. Pearl Gas Service and FIR was lodged at Police Station, Model Town. The theft was of LPG cylinder numbering about 306 which was the property of Indian Oil Corporation under the custody of the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the Indian Oil Corporation and the OP-Insurance Company. The Indian Oil Corporation raised a debit note of Rs. 5,50,800 against the complainant for which the OP-Company is liable to indemnify. The OP replied tha...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Preeti Aggarwala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]309ITR140(Delhi)

ORDER1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 16th September, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'A' (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1684/Del/2002 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.2. In the concluding paragraph of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer recorded as follows:Assessed. Tax as per law and charge interest as applicable. Penalty proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately.3. On this basis, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings against the assessed. These were set aside by the Tribunal, inter alia, in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) . Since the Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction that penalty proceedings should be initiated, the entire exercise conducted by the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings were held to be vit...

Shree Nakoda Travelling Agency Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR33

1. The ld. Counsel for the appellant states that the issue involved is whether the service rendered by utilizing buses for carrying children from home to the school and back can be treated as the taxable service of tour operators. In this context, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 20-12-2006 has come to the conclusion that the appellants' activity falls under taxable category of services as defined under Clause 65(105)(n) of Finance Act, 1994, as amended.Out of demand of Rs. 41,797/- raised against the appellants, it is stated that Rs. 30,000/- has since been paid by them.2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants also contends that they are eligible for exemption under Section 11C vide Notification No.15/2001-S.T. (sic) (15/2007-S.T.) dated 4-4-07 under which the tour operators have been given an abatement of 60% for the period from 1-4-2000 to 4-2-2004. The ld. Departmental Representative reiterates the contention of the authorities below. We find that the tour...

Prabhat Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ54CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 21,955/- was confirmed and penalties were imposed. The appellants were providing the service of stock broker.2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants raising the demand of service tax of Rs. 52,57,610/- on the ground that the appellants had not paid service tax for providing service of stock broker.3. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order, dropped the portion of demand which relates prior to 10.9.2004 on the ground that portion of taxable value (brokerage) received at by the sub broker from the customers and which is not received by the stock broker (appellant) and is also exempt from payment of service tax under Notification No.25/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004. The Notification was withdrawn w.e.f.10.9.2004 and the definition of stock broker was amended to the effect that stock broker means a...

ito Vs. Roop Singh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19-9-2005 for the assessment year 2000-01, in the matter of order passed under Section 271B/44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein following grounds have been raised: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in not treating the enhanced compensation and interest thereon received by the assessee as income for the assessmentyear under consideration, despite the fact that Section 45(5) clearly stipulates that amount by which the compensation or consideration is enhanced or further enhanced by Court, Tribunal or authority, shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head 'Capital gain' of the previous year in which such sum is received by the assessee. (2) That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.2. No body appeared on behalf of the ass...