Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 2 of about 208 results (0.032 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. British Motor Car Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)7STR623
1. This application for condonation of delay is in respect of delay of 265 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-2-2004.2. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite notice but there is a request to decide the matter on merit.3. Learned D.R. submits that this Order-in-Appeal was passed only on technical grounds against the department and as such department has got a very strong prima facie case. She also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and 4. Considered the submissions made by learned D.R. and perused the record. I find that in the application for condonation of delay at point No. 3 the department has said "that the cited order in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Hari Vishnu Packaging reported as has come to the notice of the appellants very recently i.e. in the month of January, 2005." 1 find that on the part of a responsible Government Officer, this contention that the decision of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Flex Engg. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC180
1. The appellants, M/s Flex Engg. Ltd., have been availing modvat credit on inputs and capital goods. A show cause notice was issued to them on 01.06.1999 on the ground that three impugned invoices issued by M/s Bansal Ispat, Ghaziabad, were not proper documents for availment of modvat credit. The said show cause notice also placed reliance upon another show cause notice dated 17.02.1999 issued to M/s Bansal Ispat, Ghaziabad and M/s Ajay Steel, Ghaziabad, who were the first and second stage dealers respectively from whom the goods were procured by them Page 0182 under the invoice issued under Rule 57-GG. The Deputy Commissioner in his order-in-original placed his reliance upon another order-in-original No. 77/99 dated 14.09.1999 passed by the jurisdictional excise authorities against M/s Bansal Ispat, Ghaziabad and M/s Ajay Steel, Ghaziabad, at the back of the appellants in violation of principles of natural justice. Based on this earlier order-in-original, the Deputy Commissioner dis...
Tag this Judgment!Dcit Vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)280ITR71(Delhi)
1. These two appeals have been filed by the revenue on 20.5.2002 against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi dated 27.2.2002 and 11.2.2002 respectively in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under Section 143 (3) for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively.2. The only point of dispute in these two appeals relates to the correct method of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHD available to the assessee. Facts of the case leading to this dispute, briefly, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of a travel agent and tour operator. The assessee is eligible to deduction under Section 80HHD in relation to its receipts in convertible foreign exchange on account of services provided to foreign tourists. The amounts in foreign exchange collected by the assessee included the amounts payable to hotels for boarding and lodging of foreign tourists.In accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2A) of Section 80HHD, the assessee issu...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T. Adachi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)332
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO, as perquisite on account of expenses on social security plan (Rs, 4,69,608) paid by the employer on behalf of the employee.2. The appeal relates to the asst. yr. 1996-97. The assesses is an individual. He is a foreign national. He was employed by M/s Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Japan, hereinafter referred to as (MEI), as Vice President (services) with M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., of which company he was deputed by 'MEI'. While completing this assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the AO made an addition of Rs. 4,69,608 under Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The aforesaid amount represents the contributions made by MEI, which is a Japanese company, towards the following : 3. The above four types of contributions are collectively known as "Social Security Plan" and they are payable by the employer with regard to all the employees as per the laws of...
Tag this Judgment!Napar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)98ITD285(Delhi)
1. Since there is a difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench we state the following points of difference and refer the same to the Hon'ble President for further necessary action as envisaged under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Whether on the facts and findings, issue being identical and covered by various Tribunal orders arising from the same search and in the light of material on record, the ld Accountant Member is justified in dileting the addition on account of investment in share capital of Rs. 21,63,070/- made as undisclosed income of the block period of the appellant or that the Ld. Judicial Member is justified in restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh.? I have received the following proposed question under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act. 1961 in ITA No. 206/Del. /2002. Whether on the facts and findings, issue being identical and covered by various Tribunal orders arising from the same search and in the hight of ma...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Five Star Rugs
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)222
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 19th Oct., 2004 pertaining to asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The only ground in this appeal taken by the Revenue is with regard to the decision of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IB of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of duty drawback. In the ground of appeal itself, the Revenue contends that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judgment in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods .Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Viswanathan & Co.(2003) 181 CTR (Mad) 335 : (2003) 261 ITR 737 (Mad); CIT v. Jameel Leathers & Uppers and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (2004) 192 CTR (Del) 81.3. Before me, Smt. Veena Joshi, learned Departmental Representative has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. She has heavily relied on the above judgements in support of her stand. In the aforesaid judgments, it has be...
Tag this Judgment!Arnie Club Vs. Ndmc and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT582
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At the outset I may record a displeasure. Pleadings of the respondent in the counter affidavit are far from adequate. Learned Counsel for the respondent while drafting the counter affidavit ought to have pleaded the facts with clarity and additionally should have placed on record the relevant resolutions. Needless to state, crystal clear pleadings help in issues being focused and this results in speedy disposal of a case.2. In the two captioned writ petitions this Court is called upon to adjudicate upon the validity of the bills and notice of demand raised by the respondent upon the petitioners.3. A residential complex, having numerous flats, called Golf Apartments at Sujan Singh Park was constructed by M/s. Universal Builders and Contractors. Petitioner in WP(C) 15171/2004 purchased flat No. 9. Flat buyer agreement was executed between the petitioner and the builder on 9.9.1997. Possession of the flat was taken over on 23.10.1997. Date on which NDMC was intimat...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Focus Estates (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)152; [2006]286ITR410(Delhi); [2006]152TAXMAN471(Delhi)
1. The revenue's appeal was heard and disposed of ex parte by the Tribunal by its order dated 19-7-2003 on the assumption that the notice issued to the respondent-assessed has been duly served. The assessed then applied for recall of the said order in terms of rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, inter alias on the ground that the summons issued to the assessed had not been duly served. The Tribunal has by the order impugned in this appeal, recalled the earlier order disposing of the appeal and restored the appeal for a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 empowers the Tribunal to dispose of an appeal on merits after hearing the appellant, if on the date on which the matter is called for hearing, the respondent does not appear in person or through an authorised representative. Proviso to the said rule, however, makes it abundantly...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramit Dhalla and anr. Vs. Sh. Kamal Arora
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT561; 2006(86)DRJ294
J.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, dismissing the first appeal against the order dated 18.8.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi. The Civil Judge vide the said order dismissed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff. The first appellate court vide said judgment dismissed the appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge.2. I have heard Mr. Sunil Melhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.C.Dua, learned counsel for the respondent on the point of admission and have gone through copies of the documents filed with the petition.3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners herein (plaintiffs in the trial court hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that plaintiffs are owners/landlords in possession of a plot measuring 600...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT329
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 9619/2005Allowed subject to just exceptions.OMP 437/20051. The petition has been filed u/s 34(2)(a) of of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to impugn the award dated 16.08.2005 of the arbitral tribunal. The award has been rendered by a tribunal of three arbitrators including the nominee of the petitioner and the award is unanimous. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly confined his submissions to the aspects arising from the plea that the award in certain matters is contrary to the terms of the contract. This plea arises from the judgment of the apex court in Ongc v. Saw pipes Ltd; : [2003]3SCR691 where it was held that the words 'public policy of India' have to be given wider meaning and where an award is patently illegal, the award is likely to be interfered with. Further if an award is patently contrary to the terms of the contract, the court is entitled to interfere with the award. At this stage, it may clarified that while scru...
Tag this Judgment!