Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Ongc Ltd. Cpf Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)1111

1. These four appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT(A), dt. 30th Sept., 2002 pertaining to financial years 1997-98 to 2000-01.The grounds of appeal, which are common in all the four years, read as follows : "1. That the learned CIT(A)-II, Dehradun, has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order made under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the IT Act. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee-trust was obliged in law to have deducted the tax at source, in respect of employees of ONGC who had since retired but admittedly remained its members. 3. That the CIT(A) has completely overlooked the factual substratum of the case as also the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessee, dt. 19th Sept., 2002 and further submissions dt. 20th Sept., 2002, wherein it was explained in detail that there are no income chargeable to tax had accrued to the members of the trust and as such sum being outside the scope of total income, there was no obligation to deduc...

Sanjeevan Medical Centre Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) passed in appeal No. 259/2003-04 dated 23-9-2004, against the ad hoc addition of Rs. 1,75,000 made by the assessing officer on account of closing stock of medicines and consumables by rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee.2. The material and relevant facts for the disposal of the issues involved in the grounds of appeal are that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that the assessee was not showing any opening and closing stock. The assessee explained to the assessing officer that it was following accounting policy of 'cash basis' in relation with consumption of medicines and consumables.It was further explained that since the stock records for surgical and drugs etc. were numerous in number, such records had never been maintained and as such the purchases of such items were accounted as expenditure. The assessing officer did not ...

Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)394

1. This is and appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 3rd Oct., 1997 and pertains to the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The first around taken by the. assessee is with regard to the decision of the CIT(A) in holding that a sura of Rs. 32,28,152 was not allowable to the assesses under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing, submitted that the assessee has been allowed the necessary relief by the AO while passing an order to give effect to the order of the CIT(A) and consequently, the said ground was not pressed before us. Accordingly, this ground is disposed of.3. The second ground preferred by the assessee is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of Rs. 15,443 under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act made by the AO in respect of addition to cost of assets used for research and development. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of the amount claimed by the assessee as addition to the cost ...

Shree Shyam Kamal Industries (P) Vs. Ito, Coy. Ward 8(3)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT146(Delhi)

These five appeals have been filed by the assessee on 14-5-2003 against the order of the learned CIT(A) XI, New Delhi dated 20-3-2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96. In these appeals the assessee has objected to reopening of assessments under section 147; assessment under the head income from house property of the amount of enhanced rent received by the assessee subsequent to the financial years under assessment and levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act.2. Facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly are that for the assessment years before us the following position obtained prior to issue of notices under section 148: Subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1996-97, the learned assessing officer learnt that the assessee had received arrears of lease rent in respect of its property situated at Aggarwal Market, Ville Parle (East), Mumb...

Cce Vs. Rotomac Electricals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT557TriDel

1. The issue raised in this appeal of the revenue is the correct classification of various sheets of mica produced by the appellant.Both Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that they would be classifiable under sub-heading 6807.00 (articles of mica). Still Revenue persists that the correct classification would be under heading 85.46 (electrical insulators).2. During the hearing of the case, learned JDR has brought to our notice a decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E, Aurangabad v.Isovolta (I) Pvt Ltd - 2001 (129) ELT 642 wherein a Division Bench of this Tribunal took the view that mica strip would be classificable under heading 85.46. However, the learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the heading 85.46 is grossly inappropriate inasmuch as it is contrary to the wording of relevant tariff headings. He has taken in this connection to HSN Note to chapter 68 to show that mica in different forms like strips would be classifiable under 68.01 only.Based on the material on reco...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Neeru Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the Service Tax against the respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice issued to them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned S.D.R.2. The respondents are an advertising agency. The Service Tax demand has been dropped against them by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they do not stand covered under the provisions of Service Tax. This view of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be accepted in view of the ratio of law laid down in the case of C.C.E., Ludhiana v. Gypsy Advertising Co. (T) wherein it has been observed that the advertising agency is liable to pay Service Tax as they stand covered under the provisions of the Ser-vice Tax. The impugned order is set aside and the order of the adjudicating au-thority is restored. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed....

Hutchison Telecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR80

1. The appellants in these cases are providers of cell phone service.Under the impugned orders, there are demands for service tax on the cell phone service and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also demand for interest.3. The appellants have no case in regard to service tax as that issue remains settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. v. UOI and Others [2004 (177) E.L.T. 99 (Ker.)]. Same is the case in regard to interest also.4. However, in regard to penalty, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that no penalty is called for in view of Section 80 of the Finance Act. That section reads as under : 80. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said f...

Marlboro Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT404TriDel

1. Heard both sides. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur whereby a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant.2. Appellant filed shipping bills under DEPB scheme for export of Digital Electronics Watches and declared the price at Rs. 410/- per piece. The goods were examined by the Customs authorities and market enquiries were conducted and thereafter it was found that the goods were over-priced and the same were allowed to be exported on provisional basis. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority approved the value at Rs. 30 per Digital Electronic Watch for the purpose of DEPB benefit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are not challenging the order whereby under the DEPB benefit, the value was fixed by the revenue in respect of goods. They are only challenging the imposition of penalty on the ground that there was no misdeclaration on their part in respect ...

Pankaj Kumar Dagaria Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT40TriDel

1. These appeals have been directed against the common impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of the seized gold bars and pieces and also the imposition of penalties on the appellants as detailed therein.3. On Pankaj Kumar, penalty of rupees 50,000/- has been confirmed while on Jayanti Lal of rupees 5,000/-, on Vinod Kumar penalty of rupees 25,000/- and on Ashok Kumar rupees 10,000/- has been confirmed. The penalties on these appellants, had been confirmed on account of seizure of 10 gold bars and 4 pieces of gold of foreign origin on 13-1-1999 from the business premises of M/s. Vardhaman Abhushan, Udaipur, which is the proprietory concern of Vinod Degoria, appellant and manager of which was Pankaj Kumar, at the time, and both of them are brothers.Penalty on Jayanti Lal, father of these appellants had been confirmed as he was also involved in the smuggling of seized goods. Ashok Kumar was, at that time, servant with Vinod Kumar an...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jyoti Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT88TriDel

1. The Revenue filed appeals against the Order Nos. 77-78/97 dated 25-11-97, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal under Order No. A/1001/99 dated 29-10-99.Revenue filed application for rectification of mistake for modifying this order. The application was also rejected under Order No.M/253/2000-NB (DB) dated 24-11-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 411 (T)].Aggrieved by this Order of the Tribunal, Revenue approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and the Hon'ble High Court in their decision dated 17th September, held that, "there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Order of the Tribunal dated 29-10-99 in dismissing the appeal on the ground that dispute raised in the appeal had already been settled under KVSS. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application of the Revenue for rectification of the said order. Both the questions are, accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the...