Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 25 of about 292 results (0.033 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)369; 120(2005)DLT91; [2005]278ITR337(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Commissioner of Income-tax-VI, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi has challenged the correctness of the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 6th August, 2004 on the ground that the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act raises a question of law as the Appellate Tribunal has answered the following question in favor of the assessed.'2.1 Whether provision for future warranty expenses is contingent liability or is allowable under section 37 of the Act?'2. It is contended that the above question ought to have been answered in favor of the Revenue and the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal suffers from a patent error of law. The decision is contrary to the judgments of the Court as well as not in-conformity with the statutory provisions. Thus the above substantial question of law according to the Revenue, falls for consideration of the Court in the present appeal. 3. The assessed had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vishal Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)279; 121(2005)DLT164; [2006]283ITR326(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 16th August, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'E' (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No. 13/Del/2001.2. The only ground agitated by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is with regard to deleting an addition of Rs. 10,20,000/- by the Assessing Officer.3. The assessed had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 in which it had disclosed gifts of a total of Rs.10 lakhs made by two persons and another gift of Rs. 20,000/- made by a third person. The assessed furnished necessary documents in support of the gifts received by him.4. It appears that a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of Act some time in February, 1997 in the premises of the assessed's father. No incriminating material in so far as the assessed is concerned was discovered during the search. However, the Assessing Officer resorted to Section 158BC of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of the Income Tax-iii Vs. S.K.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)81; 119(2005)DLT673; [2006]285ITR423(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. For the assessment year 1996-97, the Respondent assessed claimed deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The Assessing Officer passed an order on 31st March, 1999 in which he held that a deduction is required to be first made under Section 80HHC of the Act and thereafter from the residual gross total income a deduction can be made under Section 80I of the Act.3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessed filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A).4. By his order dated 28th September, 2000, the CIT (A) relied upon J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax : [1998]229ITR123(MP) and allowed the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80I of the Act from the gross total income without reducing it by the amount of deduction under Section 80HHC.5. The Revenue then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but by an order dated 10th October, 2003 the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lg Electronic (India) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)205; [2006]282ITR545(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22nd June, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench SMC-I (for short the Tribunal) in ITA 529/Del/2001.2. The only issue that has been raised is with regard to deduction for expenses claimed by the assessed which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessed had not commenced its business during the assessment year. The claim of the assessed pertains to expenses incurred on traveling and conveyance, rent, telephone expenses, brokerage, maintenance and sales promotion.3. The Assessing officer was of the view that the business of the assessed would commence with the first purchase of stock in trade and since no trading activities had taken place, the assessed could not request for capitalization of the expenses incurred.4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] set...
Tag this Judgment!Hong Kong and Shangahi Banking Corporation Vs. Manas Satpathy,
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas99(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT205; 2005(82)DRJ410
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. These four revision petitions being common in nature and arising out of similar orders are being disposed of by one common judgment. The petitioner/claimant has filed a complaint against the respondent for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He filed these complaints at Karkardooma Courts despite the fact that the place of business of the petitioner was at New Delhi and the respondent/accused was also residing at New Delhi and the cheques were dishonoured in the New Delhi area. The petitioner, however, in order to create jurisdiction of ACMM , Karkardooma Courts, posted the legal notice from the Head Post Officer at Krishna Nagar and thus filed the criminal case in Karkardooma Courts on the strength of such notice. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate dealt with this aspect and dismissed all the four complaints on the ground that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain such complaints and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bluemax Sport Wear
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT429; 2005(82)DRJ584; 2005(103)ECC107; 2005(186)ELT399(Del)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant has filed CM No. 1228 seeking condensation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). CM No. 1229/2005 is an application seeking condensation of delay in re-filing the appeal after removal of objections raised by the Registry.2. Strangely, the averments in both the applications are absolutely identical and it appears that they have been filed without any application of mind.3. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 23rd April, 2002 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT). It is stated that the order was received by the Appellant on 15th May, 2002. The period of limitation for filing an appeal in this Court is six months. After expiry of the period of limitation, the present appeal was filed on 17th December, 2002.4. The Registry of this Court raised objections that the appeal and the application have been filed without a supporting affidavit being attest...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Mittal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT447
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2004 of learned Additional District Judge fixing the value of land situated in Village Ladha Sarai in pursuance to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ). A notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 23.01.1965 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 07.12.1966. These notifications resulted in Award No. 67/83-84 pronounced on 27.10.1983 whereby the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 3,300/- per bigha.2. The appellant being dissatisfied with the said fixation of the market value preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act before learned Additional District Judge. In terms of the impugned judgment, the land value has been fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per bigha.3. It is not in dispute that in Dula Ram v. Union of India : 99(2002)DLT564 , the value of land situated in Village Ladha Sarai for differe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT549; 2008(228)GLT338
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai issued a show cause notice to M/s Sharda Motors Industries Ltd. on 24.5.2001 requiring the said company to submit a reply to the said notice as based on the intelligence it was noticed that company has availed irregular Modvat Credit (now Cenvat Credit) on the capital goods belonging to and received by M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. under the lease and license agreement. The company was further required to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days in regard to the 4 points raised in the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued without prejudice to the right of the Department to take such other proceedings which are permissible under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules framed there under. The company submitted its reply to the show cause notice and after considering the contentions raised by the respective parties the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the payment of Rs. 21,...
Tag this Judgment!Radhasoami Satsang Beas (a Society Registered Under the Societies Regi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT525; 2005(82)DRJ664
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. On 8th May, 2002 the petitioner filed the present petition praying that the notification number F.10 (30) 96/L7B/LA/13417 dated 13th December, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and notification /declaration dated 7th December, 2001 under Section 6 of the Act in respect of khasra numbers 5/21, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 11/4, 11/5, 12/1 and 12/2 measuring 21 bighas 08 bids was situated in the revenue estate of village Pochan Pur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, were issued in abuse and excess of authority and also were vocative of the rights of the petitioners under Article 14, 26, 300A of the Constitution of India. The ground taken for impugning the said notifications is that notifications are illegal, mala fide and unconstitutional. Further, the petitioners pray that the entire acquisition proceedings be set aside in relation to the land which is stated to be in possession of the petitioners.2. Large chunks of lan...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Anil Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT431; 2005(82)DRJ690
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Petitioners raise challenge to the notification dated 7th March, 1988 issued by the appropriate Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and notification dated 12th April, 1988 wherein the respondent official was directed to take possession of the acquitted land by invoking emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Act and also prayed for quashing of the acquisition proceedings in regard to the property of the Petitioner measuring 11 bids was in the revenue estate of Village Azadpur, Delhi. 2. This Writ Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (A.K. Sikri, J.) was a party, vide judgment dated 31st May, 2004 wherein the Court held as under :-'23. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this writ petition is without any merit. The petitioners are precluded from challenging the acquisition on the grounds mentioned above, namely, there was no compliance of the mandatory provisi...
Tag this Judgment!