CIT-7 vs. ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/52/2015HC DelhiDLHC01019375201505 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application for modification. It directed that the appearance of Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate, for the Respondent (Assessee) be recorded in the order dated July 5, 2017. Consequently, the cause title of the order dated July 5, 2017, was directed to be amended to reflect Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate, as appearing for the Respondent. The reasoning provided is that the application was allowed for the reasons stated therein. This order does not decide any substantive issues of the appeal itself, but rather rectifies a procedural aspect of a prior order.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi (Revenue) against Odeon Builders Pvt Ltd (Assessee). The appeal is ITA 52/2015. The present order is dated July 19, 2017, and it addresses an application for modification of a previous order dated July 5, 2017. The modification pertains to recording the appearance of Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate, for the Respondent (Assessee) in the earlier order. The cause title of the order dated July 5, 2017, was also directed to be amended to reflect this appearance. No specific assessment year or amount in dispute is mentioned in this particular order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue addressed in this specific order is procedural: whether to allow an application for modification of a previous order to correctly record the appearance of the respondent's counsel. The application was made by the Revenue. The Revenue sought to have the appearance of Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate, recorded for the Respondent (Assessee) in the order dated July 5, 2017. The Assessee was represented by Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate, as per the modification sought. No arguments from the Assessee are recorded in this order, as the order is a decision on the Revenue's application.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 14 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA 52/2015

CIT-7

..... Appellant

Through : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr.Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates for Revenue.

versus

ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through : None.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

19.07.2017

CM APPL. No. 25226/2017 (modification) in ITA 52/2015 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Accordingly, appearance of Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate be recorded for the Respondent in the order dated 5th July, 2017.

2.

The cause title of the order dated 5th July, 2017 shall read as under: “$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 52/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 7, NEW DELHI..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsel.

versus

ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.”

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 19, 2017 j

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →