Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 11 of about 207 results (0.022 seconds)The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Bhim Singh Lather
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)282ITR151(Delhi)
1. The President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has originally referred the following question for my opinion as Third Member on a difference of opinion between the two Members : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the enhanced compensation received by the assesses was taxable in the hands of the assessee as income despite the fact that the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded is subject matter of proceedings before the appellate forum by the State Government as well as by the assessee and the quantum of enhanced compensation has not affined finality and the assessee has received a part of the enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation pursuant to interim orders passed by the appellate court? 2. This question arises, in the appeal for Asst. Year 1995-96. There was another difference between the two Members with regard to the taxability of interest received on the aforesaid disputed enhanced compensation and that arose in the appeal for Asst...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kishan Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3569; 121(2005)DLT444; 2005(83)DRJ405
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This is an application moved by the State seeking leave to appeal, against the judgment & order dated 17th February, 2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents of charges under Section 302/307 read with section 34 IPC giving them the benefit of doubt.2. It appears that application for leave to appeal had been prepared in June, 2001 and filed in July, 2001. The application is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being Crl.M.61/2003 seeking condensation of delay of fifty days in initial institution and a delay of one year, eleven months and 25 days in refiling the appeal. The appeal had been returned with objections.3. Learned Standing counsel Ms.Mukta Gupta places reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in State v. Suresh Kumar (Crl.L.P.52/2002) and Ors. connected appeals wherein the Division Bench, while condoning the cases of enormous delay in filing of the appeals, has taken note of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Lata Khanna Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT522; 2005(84)DRJ577
R.S.Sodhi J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 of the Metropolitan Magistrate in case arising out of FIR No. 362/83, under Section 120-B/ 448/465/420/468/471/34 IPC, Police Station, Vinay Nagar, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted the accused persons of all charges. 2. Facts of the case, as noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are as follows : '1. In this case the aforementioned 4 accused were sent up for trial with the case of the prosecution that on or about 24/6/83 in Delhi all these accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to commit house trespass in the house No. B-6/104 S.J.Enclave, New Delhi, The accused persons in pursuance of this conspiracy allegedly forged one rent note dated 2nd June 1983 in favor of M/s Rajeev Pharmaceuticals purportedly executed by the complainant. On the basis of this rent note it is alleged that all the four accused persons committed house trespass on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anis Ahmad S/O Zahir Ahmad Vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR137(Delhi); I(2006)BC199; 122(2005)DLT123; 2005(83)DRJ122
Manju Goel, J. 1.The present appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 3rd March, 2005 whereby the Additional District Judge dismissed an application for leave to defend in a suit filed under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure(for short `CPC') and passed a decree for Rs.9,89,425.25 paise with cost and interest. The appellant filed the application for leave to defend pleading the following grounds:-'3.That it is submitted that the deponent received summons of the above noted case on 9.2.2003, however the representative of the plaintiff bank, Shri Amit approached the deponent and offered for a compromise and assured that the above case shall be withdrawn.4.That though the deponent was to pay nothing to the plaintiff but in order to avoid litigation and buy peace, the said offer of compromise was accepted by the deponent and issued cheques with the conditions that the representative of the plaintiff bank should first of all withdraw the above case and intimate the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nhk Japan Broadcasting Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]284ITR357(Delhi)
1. The only question that fell for consideration before the Tribunal was whether there was reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source under Section 192 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of the retention money paid outside the country to the Japanese expatriates working in India. The Tribunal upon consideration of the circumstances recorded a finding of fact that there was reasonable cause for not making the deduction and, accordingly, cancelled the penalty levied upon the assessed under Section 271C of the Act. In doing so, the Tribunal also placed reliance upon the orders passed by it in the cases of M/s Mitsui & Co. Ltd., M/s Marubeni Corporation and M/s Fuji Bank Ltd., which orders had been upheld even by this Court in appeal. This is evident from the following paragraph appearing in the Tribunal's order :'However, the appeals of the assessed for all these years including asst. yr. 1989-90 deserve to succeed on the reasoning that there was reasonable cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suvidha Engineering Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT218TriDel
1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and penalty against the respondents.2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has been received from them, therefore we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing Id. SDR.3. From the record it is evident that the respondents under an agreement with M/s. NBCC undertook, the manufacturing erection and commissioning of Heat ventilating and Air conditioning system at ATD at Delhi Airport on behalf of M/s. AAI Ltd. in terms of work order dated 1-2-94. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,01,137/- on the respondents with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and another penalty of Rs. 2,000/-under Rule 226. Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by referring to Board's Circular No. 58/1/2002-CX., dated 15-1-2002, on the ground that the goods manufactured by t...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Dicks Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC382
1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has also been received from them, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing Ld. DR.2. From the record it is evident that the respondents during the relevant period were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods.They used logo belonging to another person on their products. At the time of visit to the factory by the Central Excise Officers on 29.1.96, certain goods were also found lying unaccounted and those were seized.After serving SCN to them, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand by denying the benefit of SSI exemption notification, for having cleared the goods under the brand name of another person. That authority also ordered the confiscation of the seized goo...
Tag this Judgment!Pride Foramer S.A. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Spl. Range
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)880
1. This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 arises out of order of CIT(A)-I, Dehradun passed under Section 201(1) of the Act. In ground No. 1 to 5 the assessee's grievance is that no tax was payable on remuneration of expatriates who fulfilled all the conditions of exemption in terms of Article XIV(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with France.2. The assessee is a Non-resident company incorporated in France.During the financial year 1987-88 relevant to assessment year 1988-89, the assessee company had executed three contracts with ONGC. The first was of Drilling operations on assessee's own rig I.D.A. The others were mannng and management services contacts for supervision of drilling activities carried on by ONGC on its own rigs namely (a)Sagar Vijay and (b) Sagar Bhushan. For the purpose of executing these contracts, the assessee engaged the services of number of technicians. In respect of expatriates deputed for business operations on Jack up rig I.D.A. owned by t...
Tag this Judgment!Eli Lilly and Co. (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)461
1. This is an appeal by M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), against the order dt.13th May, 2003 of CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, relating to the financial year 2001-02.2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO, holding the appellant to be in default for not deducting tax at source at the applicable rates resulting in a short-deduction of tax at source and consequently holding the appellant to be in default under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and levying interest on tax not deducted at source under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the Act.3. The facts and circumstances under which the appeal arises are as follows. The appellant is a joint venture company between M/s Eli Lilly Inc., Netherlands, and M/s Ranbaxy Ltd., and is engaged in the trading of Pharmaceuticals. It imports these products and undertakes their marketing. The products are sold and marketed throughou...
Tag this Judgment!National Highways Authority of India Vs. Pnc Constructions Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR631(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT511; 2005(82)DRJ489
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') against the order dated 24th July, 2003 by which the Arbitral Tribunal held the claims Nos.1,2,3,4,7,8,9 and 10 of the respondent/contractor adjudicated by the Disputes Review Expert(hereinafter referred to as the `DRE') beyond the scope of reference to the arbitration and thus declined to entertain the pleas of the appellant in respect of such claims. 2. The facts of the case as follows:-The respondent/contractor was awarded on 29th December, 1995 the work of four lanning of Km. 8000 to Km. 24.000 of Agra-Gwalior Section of NH-3 in the State of Uttar Pradesh (Contract Package No.NS-4/UP) by the appellant National Highways Authority of India(NHAI). Thereafter disputes arose between the parties. The DRE stood appointed on 8th February, 2001. On 16th October, 2001, 20 disputes were referred to Engineer for his decision by the respondent/contract...
Tag this Judgment!