Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

G.B. Pai Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order 26-12-2004 passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi for assessment year 1999-2000. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessing officer's act of adding a sum of Rs. 6,40,892 as long-term capital gain under Section 45. Whereas the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 7,66,848 as capital receipt from sale of his 'Personal Effects' being his collection of rare postal stamps & covers, and 'Personal Effects' are excluded from the definition of capital asset under Section 2(14)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessing officer's act of adding a sum of Rs. 6,40,892 as long-term capital gain under Section 45. When as per the order of assessing officer cost of acquisition being NIL, computation of capital gain under Section 48 is not possib...

ito Vs. Gurdip Singh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross appeals by revenue as well as by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), XXVI, New Delhi, dated 9-7-2004.2. The assessee is an individual deriving income by way of salary from various companies in which he is a Director. He also receives income from house property, income from business in the form of interest from partnership firm and income from other sources. During the year the assessee has also declared long-term capital loss on sale of house property.3. We firstly take up the appeal of the revenue. The first ground of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 60,000 on account of conveyance expenses.3.1 The assessee declared salary from M/s. Panchsheel Properties Pvt.Ltd. of a sum of Rs. 1,80,000. In the salary certificate issued by the company a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 was stated to be paid to the assessee as remuneration. Tax was also deducted at source on such sum of Rs. 2,40,000. When the assessee was asked to explain the disc...

Ram Singh Mathur Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)989

1. This appeal filed by the assesses who is an individual relates to the asst. yr. 2001-02 and arises out of the best judgment order passed under Section 144 of the IT Act on 8th March, 2004. The assessee carries on business in electronic detonators in the name and style of M/s Ram Singh & Co.3. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are to the effect that the assessment is to be quashed since it has been framed without serving the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The return was filed on 31st Oct., 2001. Notice under Section 143(2), therefore, ought to have been served on the assessee on or before 31st Oct., 2002. A notice was issued on 25th Oct., 2002 and it was served by affixture on 31st Oct., 2002. The assessee challenges the notice on the ground that it has not been properly served and since no other notice was served on him before the aforesaid date, the assessment should be quashed on the ba...

R.G. Softdrinks P. Limited Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]141CompCas317(Delhi); (2008)5CompLJ523(Del); [2008]81SCL111(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal is filed against the order dated 14th January, 2003 passed by the learned Company Judge whereby the Company Application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein was allowed to the extent indicated in the said order. The said application was filed by the respondent No.2 herein under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules seeking that the land covered under plot Nos. 7,8,13,14 and 15, UPSIDC Industrial Area No. 1, Sultanpur Road, Rai Bareli, Uttar Pradesh be released from attachment. On consideration of the said application and on perusal of records, the learned Single Judge allowed the same by giving detailed reasons with a direction that the Official Liquidator would release the aforesaid land in favor of the applicant- respondent No. 2 effective from 25th February, 2003.2. The appellant company is represented by its ex-President who has appeared in person and challenged the legality of the aforesaid order on the ground that respondent No. 2 had no l...

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-iii Vs. J.S. Electronics Pvt. Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)138; [2009]311ITR311(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 24th August, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' in ITA No. 1508/Del/1999 relevant for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessed is a private limited company dealing in shares. The assessed came to know that the erstwhile HCL had entered into a joint venture agreement with Hewlett Packard, USA and that in terms thereof, shares of the erstwhile HCL would effectively be transferred to HCL Ltd. and HCL HP Ltd. In fact, a scheme of arrangement to this end was prepared and sanctioned under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by this Court. One of the terms of the scheme of arrangement, with which we are concerned, provided that the shareholders of the erstwhile HCL would receive, for 100 shares held by each shareholder, 68 shares of HCL HP Ltd. and 32 shares of HCL Ltd. The assessed also came to know that Hewlett Packard, USA would buy the shares of HCL HP Ltd. at a predetermined pric...

Bal Kishan @ Bal Kishan Sewak Vs. the State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ288

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed on 25th February, 2006 which reads as under:NIRMALA DEVI V. BAL KISHAN SEWAKCC No. 9571/125.02.2006Pr : Complainant in personLd. APP for the StateReply has filed by Ld. APP for the State along with certified copy of order dated 17.9.2005 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.I have gone through the complaint and the reply the complainant has alleged the accused Bal Kishan Sewak had raped her on various occasions and on various dates. In the complaint she has narrated all the circumstances. In the reply it is stated that on the complaint of complainant some inquiries were made by DCP Public Grievances Cell and it was found that complainant herself was involved in a case. She has been defended by accused Bal Kishan Sewak as her advocate. During the inquiry, it was revealed that allegations are false. In view of complaint filed, it discloses commission of co...

Diamond Filling Station Vs. D.D.A. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ302

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a direction to the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) to re-site/re-locate its petrol pump by allotting an appropriate plot. 2. Before we deal with the issues raised before us it will be necessary to deal with some of the background facts on the basis of which the present appeal is filed. The appellant was allotted a retail petrol pump outlet on 13.6.1991 as dealer under IBP Company Limited. Initially, the appellant took a plot of land on lease at Village Dhansa for establishing the petrol pump. It is also stated that the said petrol pump became operational and functional from the said plot of land but later on, the Oil Company was of the opinion that the petrol pump was not remunerative. In the meantime the owner of the land was also asking the...

Pinaki Ghosh Vs. Internation Airport Authority of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ721Del

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The appellant herein was appointed as Legal Officer by the respondent-IAAI with effect from 8th March, 1984 through appointment letter dated 23rd March, 1984. In the said appointment letter it was stated that the appellant's appointment/continuation in service would be subject to his being medically fit. Clause 7 of the said appointment letter, which is relevant for the purpose for deciding the present appeal and reference to which was made during the course of submissions, is as under:7. Notwithstanding any of the clauses of this letter of appointment, the Authority reserves the right to terminate your appointment at its absolute discretion after giving you one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reason. Similarly, you shall be at liberty to resign from the service after giving one month's notice.2. Another clause, which is also relevant, is Clause 9 which reads as follows:You will abide by the rules and Re...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Satish Kumar Chandna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)528; [2009]311ITR276(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 24th November, 2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in IT(SS) No. 46/Del/97 relevant for the block period 1st April, 1985 to 22nd February,1996.2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessed has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City : [1961]41ITR135(SC) , to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal should not be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law.3. He has also drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Mahavir Woollen Mills v. Commissioner of Income-Tax : [2000]245ITR297(Delhi) , wherein this Court considered what is a substantial question of law. It was observed that a question of fact becomes a question of law if the findings are without any evid...

Sushil Ansal and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2365

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India for (i) quashing order dated 5th September, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge; (ii) to allow further oral arguments to be addressed by petitioners before trial Court; and (iii) to allow the petitioners to place their written submissions on record.2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of this petition are that a case under Section 304-A/304/337/338/285/287/436/427, IPC (known as Uphaar Tragedy Case) was fixed for delivery of judgment on 5th September, 2007. The order passed by the trial Court on 21st August, 2007 reads as under:In the Court of Mrs. MamtaSehgal, ASJ, NDCBI v. Sushil Ansal etc.21-8-2007Present: Shri Saxena SPP for CBIAll accused with their respective counselArguments on behalf of CBT concluded yesterday.Now to come up on 5-9-2007 for judgmentSd/-ASJ/ND/21-8-2007On 5th September, 2007 an application made by the ...