Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sam Orie

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]266ITR630(Delhi)

D.K. Jain J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance paid to foreign employees is exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act ?'2. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly, we have heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue.3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician is exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.4. The answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Goslino Mario : [...

Cit Vs. Sam Orie

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN301(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance paid to foreign employees is exempt under section 10(14) of the Act ?'2. These is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician in exempt under section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.4. Answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mar...

ito Vs. Smt Sheetal Kumari

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)1097

ORDERR.M. Mehta, Vice PresidentAll these appeals have been filed by the revenue and having been heard together, are disposed of by means of a consolidated order. At the time of hearing, both the parties agreed and stated that the Tribunal be pleased to take up initially three appeals, which arose out of a consolidated order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93 and 1994-96, and these were ITA Nos. 1828, 1829 and 1830/Del/2002. The common ground raised by the revenue in all these three appeals runs as under :'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi, erred in deleting the addition by holding the recurring compensation as agricultural income exempt from tax, although the same is nothing but additional compensation chargeable under section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act.'2. Coming to the facts of the case, these are identical for assessment years 1990-91 and 1992-93 inasmuch as proceedings were origina...

Narinder Khanna Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN199(Delhi)

ORDERB.C. Patel, C.J.Petitioner, party in person has filed this petition against 14 respondents and after amendment the number has increased to 19. It is prayed by him that appropriate writ of mandamus be issued to Central Board of Direct Taxes and Commissioner to collect income-tax in respect of taxable perquisites like road tax, free tyre tube, batteries, insurance premium, interest free car loan of Rs. 4 lakhs, fixed conveyance allowance of Rs. 2,000 per month as well as reimbursement of 125. Its of petrol per month from 5,000 class-I officers, 29,000 class II officers and 40,000 class III employees of government owned insurance companies for the block period of 10 years prior to search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act conducted on 29-11-2000.2. Some raids might have been conducted by the Income Tax Department and it might have found out that benefits have been taken in contravention of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, petitioner has not pointed out as to how he...

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN34(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.Centre for Public Interest Litigation, through its Secretary having its office at 05, Lawyers Chamber Supreme Court, New Delhi, has filed this petition, inter alia, praying to direct respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Chief Vigilance Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) to register First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) in respect of offences mentioned in the petition, investigate and prosecute respondents 5 and 6 who are residents of Mumbai being a Commissioner and Executive Director of Security and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai, respectively under the provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has also prayed that respondents 1 and 2 should initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 5 and 6 for irregularities.2. Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission (though mistakenly shown as 'Chief Vigilance Commission') and CBI are joine...

Cit Vs. JaIn Tube Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN34(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.The matter has been placed before us for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities. Since answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of this court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the reference at this stage itself.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the following question for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000 by holding that allowable limit under section 40A(5)(a) in case of employee directors was of Rs. 72,000 and head-wise limits in section 40A(5)(c) did not apply ?'3. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior s...

Jindal Electricals and Jindal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC591Tri(Delhi)

1. Challenge in these appeals at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 28.2.2002. The issue relates to clubbing of clearances of the two units, namely, M/s. Jindal Electricals and M/s. Jindal Electric & Machinery Corporation for the purpose of eligibility for benefit of SSI exemption.2. Jindal Electricals are engaged in the manufacture of automatic voltage controller and industrial transformers since 1985. It is owned by an HUF, of which Shri B.B. Jindal is the Karta. M/s. Jindal Electric and Machinery Corporation is a proprietary concern of Shri B.B. Jindal from 1987. Both the firms were independently claiming benefit of SSI exemption. Show cause notice proposed to club the clearances of the above two units and deny the benefit of SSI exemption. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period April 2000 to September 2000. The Commissioner took the view that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as the appellants h...

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The assessee challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.6.2002. The issue relates to the question whether the appellant is entitled to deduction in respect of prompt payment discount.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala. They sell the goods to wholesale dealers from their factory. In their price list circulated to the wholesale dealers, they indicated that from the list price a discount of 2% would be admissible to all buyers for prompt payment at the time of delivery of the goods. Excise duty was paid claiming deduction of the discount mentioned above. Show cause notices dated 26.4.96 and 26.12.96 were issued alleging that since all buyers have not availed the benefit of cash discount in respect of the sales, the assessable value would be the price without 2% cash discount. The adjudicating authority allowed the claim of the appellant. On appeal filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order.The Commissioner took t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shakti Zarda Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT804TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue for staying the operation of the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A/609-10/2001-NB, dated 13-8-2001 by which the appeals filed by M/s. Shakti Zarda Factory and another, were allowed holding that the Order passed by the Commissioner was legally not sustainable.2. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that the Revenue has filed a reference application in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is coming up for hearing shortly; that the Hon'ble High Court has vacated the stay on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant a stay in a reference matter; that the Hon'ble High Court has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Delhi v. Bansi Dhar & Sons - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) = (1986) 157 ITR 665 wherein it has been stated that in reference cases the stay ought to be obtained from the Tribunal itself.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that when the Tribunal has ...

R.M. Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT896TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 10-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,21,065/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported goods "integrated circuits" as parts of the radio cassette recorder. The goods were got cleared by them vide Bill of Entry dated 26-4-99 and in that Bill of Entry the goods declared by them were of Chinese origin.They accordingly paid the customs duty before taking the delivery of the goods. But after 20 days of the clearance of the goods, they on 18-5-99, voluntarily submitted a letter to the Commissioner of Customs that the goods were of Japanese origin, but by oversight those were mentioned as Chinese origin by the supplier in the import documents.They accordingly deposited the differential duty of Rs. 4,21,065/- vide TR-6 challan dated 22-5-99. Thereafter they were served with a show cause not...