Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Dharm Pratisthanam

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]234ITR842(Delhi)

1. Arrival of counsel for the respondent was awaited up to 12.25 p.m. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars referred to in the last order are not available with the Department and, thereforee, in terms of the last order, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Perused the contents of paragraph 7 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is arising for decision in several other matters, though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this court for the next year of assessment, i.e., 1986-87, is not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceeding is an independent proceeding in the eye of law and the rule of rest judicata is not in terms applicable to the tax assessment proceedings, (see CIT v. M. Chawla : [1989]177ITR299(Delhi) 3. As the question which is sought to be referred is a question of law...

S. K. Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)666

ORDERR. Swarup, VPThese appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). For the sake of convenience all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.ITA Nos. 4872 & 4873/Del/19942. The only common ground raised in these appeals is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the assessment on protective basis in the hands of the assessed HUF as against the assessor's claim that assessment ought to have been completed on substantive basis in the hands of the HUF.3. The facts, in brief, are that for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 the assessed filed returns in the status of HUF declaring incomes of Rs. 12,220 and Rs. 12,250 respectively. In response to notice issued under section 143(2) by the assessing officer it was stated on behalf of the assessed that the HUF of S. K. Gupta came into existence as a result of gift of Rs. 5,000 made by Suraj Bhan, father of S. K. Gupta in 1979 on the occasion of...

Anita Chadha Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]96CompCas265(Delhi); 1999CriLJ2433; 74(1998)DLT537; 1998(46)DRJ506

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. These revisions are directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated January 30, 1996, whereby the appeals against the order dated July 17, 1995, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, convicting the revisionist under Section 162 read with Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), were dismissed.2. The Registrar of Companies filed complaints against the petitioner, Shri Moti Lal Bhatia and Smt. Suman Bhatia, directors of Nirman Chit Fund Private Ltd. in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on June 11, 1992, under Sections 159 and 162 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner and the above said two others did not submit the annual returns and balance-sheets of the company, Nirman Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 within the prescribed period thus flouting the provisions of Sections 159, 220 read with Section 162 of the Act. The lea...

Advance Ruling P. No. 14 of 1997, in Re

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]234ITR335(Delhi)

Head Note:INCOME TAXCompany--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Effect of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in the case of foreign company Ratio & Held :Article 7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherland only limits quantum of taxable income of applicant-company and applicant remains liable to pay tax on its business profits attributable to its permanent establishment in India and, thereforee, applicant company would not go outside the purview of section 115JA by virtue of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Application :Also to current assessment year. A.Y. :1997-98 Dt.Ruling. :20-7-1998Income Tax Act 1961 s.115JA Company--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Foreign company--Non-applicability of some of provisions of s. 115JA Ratio :Non-applicability of some of the provisions of section 115JA in toto to a foreign company cannot be a ground to exempt foreign company altogether from purview of section 115JA. Held :In the case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ross minste...

Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT935TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Excimer Laser imported by the Appellants is liable to confiscation and whether penalty is imposable on the importer under the Customs Act for non obtaining the Import Export Code Number.2. Shri J.M. Sharma, ld. Consultant, submits that M/s. Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd., herein appellants imported excimer laser for use in their own clinic; that the impugned goods are freely importable without a licence; that they are no regular importers and exporters; that the issue regarding the import was discussed with the State Bank of India (SBI) who opened the Letter of Credit but never advised the appellants regarding obtaining an Importer Exporter Code; that even the Customs House Agent engaged for clearance of the goods did not advise them to obtain the code. The Commissioner of Customs had confiscated the Excimer Laser under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act and ordered redemption on payment of fine Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposed a personal pe...

Shri Ganesh Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT300TriDel

1. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin has filed this application seeking rectification of mistake said to have been committed in Final Order No.178/98-A, dated 6-2-1998. The application was opposed by the respondent. We have heard both sides.2. The common order-in-original dated 29-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin demanding customs duty of Rs. 5,52,244.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs was challenged in Appeal C/21/95-A and subsequently supplementary Appeal No. C/280/97-A was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Delay has been condoned. Both the appeals have been disposed of by Final Order No. 178/98-A, dated 6-2-1998 1998 (104) E.L.T. 88 (Tribunal)] setting aside the confirmation of demand and reducing the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The demand was made on the basis of the two main allegations, one of misdescription of quantity imported and the other of misdeclaration of value. The Collector ascertained the correct quantity of goods imported and enh...

Bansiwala Iron and Steel Rolling Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT809TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, the matter relates to the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs i.e.iron & steel scrap obtained from breaking up of the ship. The Revenue had contended that the inputs received by the appellants were obtained from breaking up of the Indian ships and that by virtue of the second proviso No. 2 under Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (NT) dated 1-3-1994 the credit was to be restricted to Rs. 920/- per tonne, while the credit has been taken at higher rate.2. I have heard Shri B.L. Ghai, Partner of the Firm, who submitted that there was no allegation that the scrap received by them from the open market was obtained from breaking up of the Indian ship. He submitted that the adjudicating authority had taken a view that the breaking up of the ship amounted to the process of manufacture and the inputs so obtained were manufactured in India. He had thus taken a view that in all cases of ship breaking scrap, the Modvat credi...

Y.K. Mehta and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As all these 3 OAs involve common questions of law and fact they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In this O.A. applicant Shri Y.K. Mehta, Video Executive, Doordarshan, New Delhi impugns respondents order dated 14,6.93 Annexure-C(colly.) and dated 17.8.93 Ann-C (Colly.) whereby R-6 to 38 have been promoted, and prays for promotion w.e.f. 26.6.78 with consequential benefits. OA-53/97 3. In this O.A. applicants who belong to All India Graphic Artists Association, Doordarshan seek a direction to declare the presence/posts of Programme Executives and Transmission Executives as illegal w.e.f.the date of implementation of the new staffing pattern and seek promotion as per the Inter-Departmental Review and Rationalisation Committee Report over the promotions of R-4 to 20 with retrospective effect with consequential benefits.4. In this O.A, applicants Shri R.K. Tayal & Others also seek a direction to declare the presence/posts of Programme Executives and Transmission Execut...

Ashok Rai Vs. M/S. Kailash Nath and Associates and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)163; 1998(46)DRJ826

ORDERK.S. Gupta,J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.A.No. 2742/97.2. Suit was filed, inter alia, alleging that the plaintiff, Vikram Rai and Smt. Jyotsana Sahni are the heirs of Smt. Vimla Balwant Rai who died intestate on 28th September, 1988. Defendant No.1 is a registered firm carrying on the business of builders and developers of properties and defendants 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. Defendants 4 to 6 are the sons of Late Basheshar Nath and brothers of said Smt. Vimla Balwant Rai. Defendants 1 to 3, on the one hand, and defendants 4 to 6, on the other hand, entered into a building and development agreement on 2nd May, 1971 with regard to property situated at 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi owned by defendants 4 to 6. In a letter dated 2nd May, 1971 defendant No.1 had culled out the terms of contract for development of the said plot and construction of a multi-storey building thereon. Under the said agreement it was, inter-alia, stated that out of the total saleable are...

Kerala State Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs. National Building Constructi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT62

1. Petitioner filed application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act alleging that it had entered into four agreements with the respondent to execute certain items of work undertaken to be performed by it to the Lybian Government. On disputes having arisen between the parties, petitioner filed Suit Nos. 211-A, 212-A, 213-A and 214-A of 1982 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrator as provided in the arbitration clause in the agreements, to adjudicate upon the disputes. As per the directions of the court in the said suits, Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, New Delhi appointed Harish Chandra, Chief Engineer, NDZ-1, CPWD as arbitrator vide O.M. No.0-17031-45-81-PS dated 26th October, 1982. On the said arbitrator entering on the reference both the parties filed their claims, counter-claims, replies and documents. Arbitrator has made and published the award on 29th November, 1991 and has also filed the same in court on 7th Februa...