Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Luman Auto Light (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 18-1-2005. The only contention of the applicant is that the goods in question which are under confiscation are already duty paid, therefore, the demand of duty second time is not sustainable. The contention is that this plea was raised specifically but no finding is given in this regard. As the applicant produced the evidence covering the goods, showing payment of duty subsequently after seizure of the goods, in this situation duty already paid is to be adjusted against the demand confirmed in the impugned order. The ROM is allowed as indicated above....

Pride Foramer S.A. (Formerly Vs. Acit, S.R.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)98ITD249(Delhi)

1. This is a Misc. Application filed by the assessee Under Section 254(2) of the Act praying that the Order dt. 14.7.05 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal be recalled and the patent mistakes in the Order be rectified.2. Before adverting to the various mistakes pointed out in this M.A., in the Order of the Tribunal, it is necessary for us to give a background of the past history of the appellant. The appellant is a non resident company incorporated in France. It entered into a contract with ONGC of India. The appellant as per the agreement was to provide technicians for the exploration of oil and gas offshore India. Through the technicians the appellant provide technical services on jack up rigs owned by the ONGC. In the A.Y. 1984-85 to 1986-87 the question arose as to whether the salary which the appellant pays to the expatriate employees who work on the ONGC jack up rigs were chargeable to tax in India and consequently was there an obligation on the part of the appellant...

income Tax Officer Vs. Freight Systems (India) (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)103

1. These four appeals filed by the Revenue against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) passed in appeal Nos. 0058, 0059, 0060 and 0061/2004-05 dt. 14th Oct., 2004 for asst. yrs. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order, for the sake of convenience, because the issues involved in the grounds of appeal are identical.2. In all its appeals, the Revenue has taken the following identical grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred: (i) in holding that the payment of ocean freight was not liable for TDS under Section 194C of the IT Act, in view of provisions of Section 172 of the Act in spite of the fact that the assessee despite sufficient opportunity failed to prove that payments of freight were made to non-resident shipping companies or their agents so as to be covered under Section 172 of the Act; and (ii) in holding that inland haulage charges are covered under Sub-section (8) of ...

St. Stephen'S Hospital Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)6SOT60(Delhi)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi dated 12-1-2004 whereby he upheld the order of the assessing officer passed under section 201 (1) treating the assessee as in default for short deduction of tax at source from the payments made to consultant doctors employed in the hospital.2. The assessee in the present case is a trust which is running a hospital in New Delhi. During the course of verification of the TDS return filed by it for financial year 2001-02, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee had deducted TDS at the rate of 5 per cent from the remuneration paid to the consultant doctors employed in the hospital treating the same as 'fees for professional services'.According to the assessing officer, the remuneration paid to the consultant doctors was chargeable to tax under the head Income from salary'and the same should have been subjected to TDS as per the provisions of section 192 and not as pe...

Nariman Films Vs. Dilip R. Mehta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT506; 2005(31)PTC571(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringement of the copyright under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ) and for damages, accounts, delivery-up, etc.2. The plaintiff and its predecessors are stated to be engaged in the business of film production and are producers inter alias of the film titled 'DON'. The plaintiff claims to be the author and owner of the copyright in the cinematographic film, sound recordings and the tracks. On 30.09.1975, a standard form contract was signed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is stated to have had a monopoly at the relevant stage of time in the business and had apparently entered into similar standard contracts with different parties.3. The plaintiff states that rights were given under the agreement by the plaintiff to the defendants for a period of 25 years from expiry of the date of the con...

Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iranian Offshore Engg. and Const. Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC136

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of two connected petitions being OMP Nos. 251/2005 and 320/2005. Parties in both the petitions are same. Dispute relates to a sub-contract agreement dated 5.2.2005 entered into between the parties under which the petitioner undertook to carry out 'trenching and burial activities, laying of 48' 14' pipe line from refinery end up to shore and to maximum of 1000 meters trenching depth of approximate 4.5 meters and width as required by client up to maximum bottom width of 25 meter of two sections of not exceeding 15 meter for each pipe including hydrographic survey, shore trenching, intertribal zone trenching including waiting charges of dredger 'Kamal-XXX' for burial activities beyond total deployment of 40 days for all equipment as specified in letter No. JS-ML-2005 dated 11th January 2005. The main contract between the respondent and IOCL was entered into on 16.12.2004 at New Delhi where the respondent had undertaken to execute the w...

Siemens Limited Vs. K.K. Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT85; 2005(85)DRJ214; 2006(108)ELT899(Del); (2006)IILLJ66Del; 2006(2)SLJ503(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner company/employer challenges the order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by the learned Labour Court upholding the objections of the respondent that the petitioner management should not be allowed to be represented through legal practitioners/lawyers and S/Shri G.D. Maheshwari, P.K. Sharma and R.K. Joshi who claimed to be officers of the PHD Chambers of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI), on the ground that they were not entitled to represent the said management in view of the specific bar contained in Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Shri G.D. Maheshwari retired from the service of PHDCCI and had stopped appearing on its behalf. In doing so, the impugned order followed the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineer's Association v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr., 1995 LAB I.C. 2654, wherein it was held that the employer define...

Prem Grover Vs. Balwant Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT575

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The defendant is the owner of a four-storeyed property comprising of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor with terrace along with servant quarter block situated at land admeasuring 2 bighas 3 bids was (equivalent to 2150 sq. yds.) forming part of khasra No. 305/2/03 (2-0) and 308/1/3 min (0-3). situated in Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi having purchased the same vide Sale Deed dated 17.08.1979. A part of the property comprising of basement and ground floor is under the tenancy of Syndicate Bank as per Lease Deed dated 01.10.2001.2. An agreement to sell was executed on 07.07.2004 by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the property in question for a total consideration of Rs. 2.69 crores and the earnest money / advance was paid of Rs. 28 lakhs. The suit has been fled for specific performance of the said Agreement to Sell.3. The plaintiff claims that the defendant was required to obtain a No Objection Certificate ...

Zaki Anwar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants tiled this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, whereby penalty of rupees two lakh was imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Custom Act.3. Appellants are working as a Customs Inspector. M/s. Romil International filed four shipping bills declaring the goods as readymade garments. The appellant gave an examination report that the goods were as per declaration. Subsequently the goods were re-examined and it was found that in instead of readymade garments, these were low valued old and used garments. The exporter of the consignment was entitled to drawback claim in respect of ready-made garments exported.The total value declared by the exporter is Rs.2,13,38,234.00 whereas on examination, it was found that the goods were valued at Rs.10,27,135.00. The adjudicating Authority, after issuance of the show cause notice, confiscated the goods and disallowed the drawback and imposed penalties on exporter and other persons includin...

Rajiv Tayal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi81; 124(2005)DLT502; 2005(85)DRJ146

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Orders dated 23rd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 passed by the Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, New York, USA. This order was passed on the directions of the respondent No. 1, namely, the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi for impounding the passport of the petitioner. The other major prayer made in the writ petition challenges the Order dated 21st August, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 89/2003 under Section 406/498A IPC P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi declaring the petitioner as `Proclaimed Offender'. The petitioner inter alias challenges the virus of the Section 10(3)(e) & (h) of Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') as well as the validity of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.3. The Se...