Delhi Court February 1999 Judgments

Telecommunications Consultants Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The only ground raised by the appellant company in this appeal is reproduced hereunder : "Deduction allowed under s. 32AB has been wrongly proportionately reduced from the contribution of foreign project while giving the benefits under ss. 80HHB and 80-O." 2. The appellant company is a Government of India's enterprise under the administrative control of Ministry of Telecommunication, Government of India. The company is a prime multi disciplinary consultancy organisation providing full range of consultancy, design, engineering services in all the fields of telecommunications in India as well as abroad. The company also undertakes computer software projects and have deputed a number of software experts to the countries abroad. The assessee claimed deductions under ss. 80HHB and 80-O of IT Act, 1961 in relation to income derived from various foreign projects undertaken by the company. It also claimed deduction under s. 32AB of the IT Act, 1961.3. The Dy. CIT (Asst.), Special Range-2, ...

Dinesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)365; 1999CriLJ1481; 78(1999)DLT800; 1999(49)DRJ126

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1.Rule D.B. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner challenges the detention of Dinesh Kumar Jain on 11 August, 1998, pursuant to the order passed on 20 May, 1998 by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA Act). 3. The order of detention is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the said detenu with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods, in future. According to the grounds of detention, on 20 January, 1997, the detenu, identifying himself as Rajendra Kumar, holding Indian Passport in that name, got himself cleaned through immigration and customs in the departure hal...

Harnam Singh Bishan Singh Jewellers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissione ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)14

ORDERRamesh Tolani, J.M.:This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) XVIII, New Delhi, dated 18-3-1991, for assessment year 1991-92 confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessed :1. 'That the order is bad in law and in facts.'2. 'That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He further erred in imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,10,500 on the appellants under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the imposition of the said penalty.'3. Shri K. Sampath, C.A. appeared on behalf of the assessed and Shri S.R. Malik, Departmental Representative, appeared for the revenue .4. The learned counsel for the assessed submitted that the appellant company derives income from...

Sunrise Polycon Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT275TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal dated 21-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods under Chapter 39. During the year 1994 the unit was registered under Rule 174 and also opted to avail the Modvat concession w.r.t. Rule 57A r/w 57G and filed a declaration on 25-11-1994. On 10-1-1995 the appellants filed a revised declaration in which the inputs were reduced from 12 to 8. After submitting the declaration on 25-11-1994 to the A.C., Varanasi, the appellants entered the inputs received in the factory in RG 23A Part I on the date of receipt of inputs. But credited the duty thereof only on and after 15-1-1995 in RG 23A Part II. The credits were taken on the dates of utilisation of the inputs and thus the inputs were lying in the factory till the date of filing of second declaration on 10-1-1995. The RG 23A Part I of December 1994 was submitted to the Range Superintendent on 5-1-...

N.N. Seth Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)307; 78(1999)DLT203; 1999(49)DRJ152

ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants praying for a decree for damages. The plaintiff has sought for a decree for payment of Rs. 7 lac as damages for causing mental torture, harassment, loss of reputation and loss of promotion. 2. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff and in pursuance thereof the plaintiff was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal was passed by the then DIG, Delhi Police vide order dated 18.9.1964. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the then Inspector General of Police, who by order dated 27.9.1965 set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for conducting de novo enquiry. Pursuant to the de novo enquiry conducted against the plaintiff he was dismissed from service by the Inspector General of Police under Order dated 16.11.1965. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order the plaintiff preferred a representation to the t...

Gurpal Singh Vs. State Through Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)576; 78(1999)DLT820; 1999(49)DRJ193

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). Similar application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Session Judge on 19.9.1998. 2. Briefly the facts are : A secret information was received by the CBI to the effect that Shri K. S. Bains (A1), ChairmancumManaging Director of Punjab & Sind Bank along with Shri Gurpal Singh, General Manager (A2) and Shri H. S. Pal, Branch Manager, Bori Bunder Branch, Bombay (A3) along with Shri Abhijit Singh Roy, Managing Director of M/s. Jayanti Business Machines Ltd. (A4), M/s. Prasad & Co. (Share Broker) (A5), M/s. Jayanti Business Machines Ltd. (A6) had entered into conspiracy to cheat Punjab & Sind Bank in the matter of purchase of shares of M/s. Jayanti Business Machines Ltd. (for short 'JBML') and in pursuance of this conspiracy 2.5 lakh shares of JBML were purchased at a premium of Rs.70/ per share as against 60,000 shares offered by t...

P.R. Industries Vs. C.E.G.A.T.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(161)ELT23(Del)

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the question of financial hardship the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the turn-over of the petitioner is about rupees one crore per year. However, the net profit shown to the share of the partners is about Rs. 7,000/-. To say the least this does not inspire confidence. Petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. We would not like to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal.2. Dismissed 3. Interim order stands vacated....

Bhurji Super-tek Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(84)LC451Tri(Delhi)

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi dated 5.10.1998.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants had imported a consignment of Polystyrene and were allowed to clear the goods provisionally against a PD bond and samples had been drawn for testing.Their request for re-testing was disallowed and the goods were confiscated and fine and penalty were imposed.3. They had filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and also moved a stay application but, instead of fixing the stay application for hearing, learned Commissioner chose to hear the appeal but dismissed the same on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Section 129E without hearing the stay application and without giving them any opportunity of either making submissions or compliance and without dealing with the points taken up by them in the appeal.4. Even otherwise, the differential duty demanded has been incorrectly worked out without considerin...

Batra Iron and Steel Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC130

1. The appellants herein purchase duty paid flat rolls falling under Chapter 73 of the CETA, 1985 and carry out the processes of (a) surface finishing (b) barrel length finishing (c) babolar cutting and groove sizing as per specification for flat and bars etc. The department was of the view that the resultant product having distinct name, character and use was classifiable under sub-heading 8455.00, attracting central excise duty @ 15% ad valorem. The department observed that although the assessees had filed classification list for machine rolls w.e.f.1-3-1986, they did not pay any duty on the same. Therefore they called for relevant records showing purchase of plain casted/forged rolls (unmachined), figures of production and clearance for captive consumption of the machined rolls. The Director of the company, Shri Kailash Batra stated that they had manufactured and captively consumed 225 Nos. of rolls during the period from March, 1986 to January, 1989 without payment of duty; howeve...

General Exporters Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In an appeal filed the assessee has challenged the order of the AO on as many as eight grounds of appeal as under : "1. The learned AO earned in denying the appellant the benefit of s. 80HHC of IT Act, 1961 on the income of Rs. 1,87,67,770 assessed in its hands even after holding that it has directly arisen from export of goods. 2. The learned AO has further erred in holding that the appellant had not made any regular export and even if the goods had been genuinely exported, the exporter is M/s. A. V. Thomas & Co. and not the appellant. He failed to appreciate the voluminous evidence placed before him by the appellant to show that the exports had been both in law and in fact made by the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above contentions and in any case, if the learned AO was of the view that the exports were made by M/s. A. V. Thomas & Co., he ought to have assessed the above income in the hands of that concern. The assessment of an income arising for exports as the u...