Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nqa Quality Systems Registrar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)946
1. These are appeals by the assessee against the common order dt. 21st Dec, 2001, of CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, relating to asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 1997-98. Common issues are involved in all these appeals. They were heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. The first ground of appeal in all these appeals challenges the validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the AO having issued an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and having not issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the period of 12 months specified in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act, there results an order of assessment accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Such assessment cannot be reopened by the AO on a mere change of opinion and without forming the requisite belief about escapement of income. On this ground of appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that the objection raised by the assesse...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hiton Roulunds Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)479
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds : (i) the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing Rs. 1 crore paid to M/s Hilton Rubber Ltd., for the trade-mark 'Hilton' despite the fact that this is a payment towards the acquisition of a capital asset. (ii) the learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) which was rendered in an entirely different context. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction on account of belated payment of provident fund." 2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. With respect to ground No. 1, facts in nutshell borne out from the record are that the assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 1 crore under Section 37 of the IT Act in respect of the payment made to M/s Hilton Rubber Ltd. (hereinafter called as HRL) u...
Kinetics Technology (India) Ltd. Vs. Jcit Tds
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)94ITD63(Delhi)
1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 4-12-2000 relating to F.Y. 1998-99.2. Shri Shashi Bhushan Gupta, Advocate appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Prahlad Singh Sr. DR appeared for the Revenue.3. The assessee has taken only one ground in this appeal to challenge the sustenance of levy of penalty at Rs. 14,78,864/- Under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act. The facts concerning this matter are that Mr.W.G. Holt was working as Managing Director of the assessee company, namely, M/s Kinetics Technology (India) Ltd., since 27th April, 1998.Vide resolution passed by the Board of Directors Shri Holt was sent to work with the company from Netherlands by the other company KTIB. V.(now Technip Benelux B.V.), which company held 50% shares in the assessee company.4. A survey was conducted Under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act in the office premises of the company and during the survey statement of Mr. Hold, Managing Director, was recorded in...
Shell India Private Limited Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD54(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order. of learned CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 22/3/2002.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the action of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer denying the assessee adjustment of carry forward loss of Rs. 33,72.320/-.3. The assessee in the present case is a private limited company owned folly by M/s Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd., UK. ('SIPC' in short). It filed its return of income for the year under consideration originally on 30/11/98 declaring a total income of Rs. 1.47.54,550/-.The said return was subsequently revised on 1/12/99 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,63,80,140/- In the return of income, the assessee company claimed brought forward and set off of losses of earlier year i.e. A.Y. 97-98 amounting to Rs. 33,72,320/- against the income for the year under consideration. Since share holding pattern was changed during the year under consideration inasmuch as more than 51% sh...
Sushant Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC538
1. All the appeals filed against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the following penalties under Section 112 were imposed : 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ayesha Exports and M/s.Kazal Impex which are proprietary concerns of Sh. Manish Vijhani made import of fabric and filed Bills of Entry declared the same as polyester knit fabric and claimed the classification under Heading 6002.43 of Customs Tariff. The Customs authorities had not accepted the classification claimed by the importer and after chemical test of the goods classified under Heading 6001.92 of Customs Tariff attracting higher rate of duty. During investigation statement of Sh. Anthony J.D'Souza proprietor of M/s. Elinc Clearing and Forwarding, CHA was recorded who filed the Bills of Entry regarding the consignments in question. In his statement he mentioned that the consignments were imported by two firms viz. M/s. Ayesha Exports and M/s. Kazal Impex whose proprietor is Shri...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Optel Telecommunication Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC361
1. The application for condonation of delay of 44 days in preferring the above appeal is allowed as the Revenue has explained in the application that the delay was due to the fact that large number of appeals had to be filed during the months of July and October, thus causing the delay. Learned Counsel for the respondents contested the condonation of delay and cites the judgment of the Tribunal in C.C., Cochin v. G.T.N. Textiles Ltd., Kerala [1986 (26) E.L.T. 994] holding that the plea on the ground of heavy work in Commissionerate is not sufficient for condoning the delay. However, we find that as against this order, there have been numerous instances of condoning the delay if satisfactory grounds of administrative difficulties have been shown.We, therefore, allow the application. Since the appeals of the as-sessee against the same impugned order is listed for hearing today.We also list the Appeal for today....
Pinkline Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT206TriDel
1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,03,51,929/- and penalty of equal amount against M/s. Pinkline Exim Pvt. Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on Shri Mahesh Harlalka, Director of the company arises out of Order of Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur who has confirmed the demand on the ground that the Applicants company had procured Polyester Printed/dyed fabrics without payment of duty from 100% EOU on the basis of CT-3s and not used procured material in the manufacture and export of readymade garments.2. Although the Applicants have asked for adjournment on the ground of illness of the Counsel, we find it is the second time when Stay application is coming up for hearing. Hence, we can not accede to request of further time and proceed to decide the case after hearing learned Senior Departmental Representative.3. We find that the test reports of the goods show that Poly and cotton or poly and zari or Poly and Polyamide are used in the manufacture of goods in q...
R.S. Engineering Works Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC511
2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. In this case the appellant made import and filed three Bill of Entries by declaring the imported goods as Alloy Steel plates. The declaration is not accepted by the Custom authorities and after getting imported goods tested from the departmental chemical examiner and from IIT the declaration filed by the appellant was not found to be correct. The goods were found to be of stainless steel and not of alloy steel as declared by the appellant.The goods were of stainless steel which also required license for import. The adjudicating authority held that the goods are classifiable under heading 7315(2) of the Customs Tariff and also confiscated the goods in violation of the EXIM Policy and allowed the goods to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs was imposed on the appellant.3. Contention of the appellant is that the customs authorities wrongly held tha...
Avnish Bajaj Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)3CompLJ364(Del); 116(2005)DLT427; 2005(79)DRJ576
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The accused is the CEO of Baaze. Com, which Company facilitates the sale of any property, for which it receives commission and also generates revenue from advertisements carried on its web pages. There is no gainsaying that it does not own the items offered for sale, the payment and delivery of which can be via a wholly independent agency. In the present case, Counsel for the State has argued that the accused was remiss, at the pain of culpability, in not stopping payment through Banking channels after learning of the illegal nature of the transaction. This prima facie indicates that, at the present stage of investigation the sale consideration was not routed through the accused. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the actual recording was viewable on the website. She, however, contends that the Item's description 'DPS Girl having fun' should have raised alarm.3. It has been strenuously contended that if bail i...
Sunsui India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC591
1. M/s. Sunsui India Ltd. and their Managing Director have filed these four appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 88 to 97/2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the enhancement of assessable value of the goods imported by them, upheld the demand of Customs duty and penalty imposed on the Appellant Company and reduced the penalty imposed on the Managing Director.2. Shri Manik Chand, learned Consultant, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture electronic watches and clocks; that they imported parts of watches and electro micro circuits in January 1997 and September 1997; that based on the export declaration filed by their supplier with the Hong Kong Customs & Central Excise Department, the Customs Department in India has enhanced the assessable value of the goods imported by them. He mentioned that the Appellants are not challenging the demand of Customs duty as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order. In view of this we uphold the demand of Custom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »