Pvt. Ltd. And Anr v. Deputy Commissioner Of

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATTSigning Date:12.09.2024 11:03Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing. fl LN $1 &8to 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +REVIEW PET. 81/2013 IN W.P.(C) 7206/2012 WITH C.M.APPL. 1700/2013APPL. 1700/2013 RAIvIBAGH PALACE HOTEL PVT. LTD. AND ANR. PetitionerThrough: Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates.with Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , NEW DELHIRespondentThrough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. P. R. Choudhryand Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates.Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. P. R. Choudhryand Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. U.REVIEW PET. 84/2013 IN W.P.(C) 7023/2010 RAMBAGH PALACE HOTELS PVT. LTD......PetitionerThrough: Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates.Through: Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF .....RespondentThrough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. P. R. Choudhryand Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates.Counsel with Mr. P. R. Choudhryand Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI +REVIEW PET. 80/2013 IN W.P.(C) 7513/2010 WITH C.M.APPL. 1699/2013APPL. 1699/2013 .....PetitionerThrough: Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates.with Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates. MAHARAJ JAI SINGH versus INCOME TAX OFFICER. RespondentThrough: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. P. R. Choudhryand Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. +REVIEW PET. 79/2013 IN W.P.(C) [75][ 16/2010 WITH C.M.]APPL. 1698/2013 PetitionerMAHARAJ PRITHVIRAJ SINGHThrough: Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.Sheel Vardhan, Advocates.versus INCOME TAX OFFICERRespondentThrough: Mr. Rohit [Madan, Sr. Standing]Counsel with Mr. P. R. [Choudhry]and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EAS WAR ORDER%17.04.2014 The petitioner seeks review of a common judgment and order dated10.01.2013 by which notices issued by the respondent under Section 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were upheld and the writ petitions weredismissed. It is contended on behalf of the review petitioner by seniorcounsel that the reference to Mr. Rajkumar Devraj describing a directorof the petitioner-company is without factual foundation. It is urged thatthe said individual is a complete stranger and had complained to the income tax authorities about alleged evasion. Having regard to thesecircumstances, it is submitted that though not strictly assumption of factwhich has been completely gone into. It was contended - with specificreference to para 10 of the judgment of this Court that the expensesincurred towards brand promotion by foreign travel for relevant years wasan aspect which had been examined during the course of regularassessment proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that in accordancewith the agreement arrived between the assessee and the Taj Group(Indian Hotels) Ltd. which was originally entered into on [07.03.1975,]these expenses had to be incurred and were, therefore, allowed to theassessee, particular reference is made to Section 2 of the said agreement,which is in the following terms: - "Section 2 - The Operating Company agrees to use itsgood offices and endeavour to obtain for the hotel and itsguests the benefits and advantages of worldwide sales,reservation/ credit card systems available to other hotelsmanaged, operated or owned by the Operating Companyor otherwise by virtue of agreement/ arrangement with anygroup or chain of hotels of international repute. Allexpenses incurred in respect of the foregoing shall be onaccount of and at the cost of the Owning Company." This Court has considered the submissions as to whether Mr. "Section 2 - The Operating Company agrees to use itsgood offices and endeavour to obtain for the hotel and itsguests the benefits and advantages of worldwide sales,reservation/ credit card systems available to other hotelsmanaged, operated or owned by the Operating Companyor otherwise by virtue of agreement/ arrangement with anygroup or chain of hotels of international repute. Allexpenses incurred in respect of the foregoing shall be onaccount of and at the cost of the Owning Company." This Court has considered the submissions as to whether Mr. Rajkumar Devraj was a stranger or a director is not relevant since hisdescription is not central to the issue decided. This Court was not evenguided or influenced by the fact that being a director - a reference to such status being made only at one place of the judgment income taxauthorities impugned notice was consequently in order. Rather this Courtwent into merits of the contention that the Section 148 issued in this casewere not justified, made by the assessee. Therefore, the argument that themisdescription of Mr. Rajkumar Devraj is without foundation. So far as the second aspect that is the travel expenditure incurredtowards foreign trips, this Court merely concluded that there was nosupporting material to justify the claim of the assessee nor had theassessee made full and proper disclosure in the returns filed by it. It wasin this context the Court stated in para 9 that the ["expenditure on foreign]currency for foreign travel amounted to Rs. 12.50 lakhs no other detailswere filed by the petitioner in respect of foreign travel expenses at thetime of original assessment". [Later it was also recorded that ]["it is also a]fact that the petitioner did not furnish any particulars related to foreigntours and their business connections". So far as the condition in the agreement of [1975 ][obliging the]assessee or its director to foreign travel goes this is what the Court had tosay in ["our attention was not drawn by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner]to any particular document or record in which the [full ][and true]particulars of the foreign travel expenses were submitted by the petitionerat the time of the original assessment; nor was it disputed that there was such a clause in the agreement with Ta] group". As we see Section 2 ofthe agreement of 07.03.1995 nowhere states that such foreign travelshould be undertaken annually or in a routine manner as urged to do.Learned senior counsel argued that understanding of the parties that suchtrips were mandatory and explanation which had been consistentlyaccepted by the revenue. This Court does not express any opinion onwhat happened in, the past or as to what was the understanding, which donot in any manner suggests the application which is the reason why theCourt clearly recorded in para 10 that no condition or clause in theagreement admitted such a construction. For the above reasons, the Courtis satisfied that no ground is made to review the judgment. Reviewpetitions are accordingly dismissed. •Lj LjS. RAVINDRA BHAT, J APRIL 17, 2014hs R.V.EAS WAR, J