Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Anup Kumar Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2. This is an appeal against Adjudication Order No. 27/VSI/2000 dated 28-4-2000 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 60,000 for not taking sufficient and reasonable steps for repatriation of the export proceeds in contravention of the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 3. While disposing of application for dispensation of the pre-deposit, this Tribunal by order dated 13-11-2002 directed the appellant to make pre-deposit of the amount of penalty of Rs. 60,000 which the appellant failed to comply. He made an application dated 29-1-2003 describing that the appellant is to poor to make pre-deposit of the amount of penalty of Rs. 60,000. On this application, this Tribunal by order dated 31-1-2003 extended six months time. However, the appellant failed to make any pre-deposit till today. Presently, when this appeal is fixed for hearing and notice was served, the appellant again made an...

Raj Kumar Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3883; 123(2005)DLT491; 2005(84)DRJ340

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 30.7.1992, convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in short 'I.P.C.'. Vide order dated 19.8.1992 appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, or in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 10 months. The appellant had been acquitted of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act since the knife recovered did not fall within the ambit of the notification under the Act.2. The prosecution's case in brief is that on 3.4.1988 at about 1.00 P.M. appellant Raj Kumar assaulted, Darshan Singh with a knife at Gandhi Park, Hari Nagar. As a result of the injuries sustained, Darshan Singh succumbed to the same on 5.4.1988. Darshan Singh, the deceased was playing cricket along with Sunil Kumar and others at Gandhi Park, when the appellant Raj Kumar happened to pass-by. Darshan Singh asked him to return t...

Smt. Ram Murti Devi and anr. Vs. Sh. Raj Kishore and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ243

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants, mother and father of deceased Sanjiv Goyal seek enhancement of compensation in the present appeal. There are no cross objections and accordingly only issue which needs to be decided in the present appeal is whether compensation assessed and awarded is just and fair.2. Deceased Sanjiv Goyal aged 21 years was driving a two wheel scooter on 1.1.1998. On Ring Road he was hit by a tempo driven by Raj Kishore and belonging to M/s. Pooja Enterprises. He was dragged for quite a distance. He died at the spot.3. Sanjay was unmarried. He was carrying on business at Naya Bazar under the name and style of Tirupati Sales Corporation. As per the testimony of PW.4, deceased was contributing Rs. 10,000/- p.m. for the household expenditure by paying over the said sum to his mother.4. At the trial, income tax returns of the deceased were exhibited at Ex.PW.4/1 to Ex.PW.4/6.5. Taking note of the income tax return for the year 1998-1999 which shows an annual income of Rs...

Argha Sen Vs. Interra Information Technologies (India) (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]75SCL150(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The two petitioners in these petitions, which have been filed against the same respondent-company, were the employees of the respondent-company. They allege that their terminal dues are not paid in spite of statutory notice and, thereforee, it be deemed that the respondent-company is unable to pay the debt and it be ordered to be wound up. We may first take note of the bare facts of the two cases making the claims.2. Petitioner in his case was appointed as Vice-President on 16-1-2001. According to the averments made in the petition, he had to leave the services of the company because he was told that the company was winding-up its 'business group division' where the petitioner was working directly. The respondent was not in a position to pay up his salary dues, etc., and, thereforee, requested the petitioner to submit his resignation without insisting for full and final payment assuring that salary and dues, etc., would be paid as soon as funds were available. On this ...

S.R. Grover Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)183; 124(2005)DLT397; 2005(84)DRJ523; [2006]280ITR580(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The assessed, a lawyer by profession, filed his return of income on 31.10.1995 in respect of assessment year 1995-96. He declared a total income of Rs.2,05,326/- after claiming a deduction of Rs.17,05,760/- Under Section 80-O being 50% of the gross professional fees received in foreign exchange to the extent of Rs.34,11,529/-. In the profit and loss account, the assessed had shown gross professional fees amounting to Rs.41,46,203/- (including the said gross professional fees received in foreign exchange) and gross interest receipt of Rs.42,804/-. The assessed claimed various expenses like salary, traveling expenditure, conveyance and other official expenses and after deducting the same from the gross receipts, the net profit has been shown as Rs.17,68,707/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and by intimation dated 27.01.1997 the total income was computed at...

Aeroflot Russian International Vs. Addl. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)5SOT583(Delhi)

This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 25-9-2002 relating to assessment year 1997-98.The appellant has taken only two grounds in this appeal out of which ground No. 1 is effective ground which challenges the sustenance of penalty of Rs. 1,65,78,889 imposed by the Addl. CIT, Range 49, New Delhi under section 271C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.Shri Prakash Narain Advocate along with Shri S.K. Chaturvedi FCA appeared for the assessee whereas Shri B.P. Mishra Sr. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE represented the revenue.The assessee, M/s Aeroflot Russian International Airlines, has been operating between India and Russia. It is official and Government airlines of the then USSR and now belongs to the Federation of Russia.A survey operation under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 12-1-1999 and it was found that the assessee was not deducting TDS on various payments including rent, salary, contractual payments etc., ...

ito Vs. Honey Enterprises (Delhi)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)5SOT575(Delhi)

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-1-2002.The first ground of appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 9,25,688 by the Commissioner (Appeals) on account of understated profit on 'Insaniyat Ka Devta'.The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to allowing excess loss of Rs. 2,66,050 by the Commissioner (Appeals) on account of 'Shreeman Ashiq'.Since the grounds of appeal are interconnected they are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.The brief facts of the case are that the assessing officer observed that the assessee had shown carried forward loss from previous year of Rs. 9,25,687.91 in the picture-wise Profit and Loss Account with regard to the film 'Insaniyat Ka Devta' and had carried forward loss of previous year of Rs. 7,31,413.84 with regard to film 'Shreeman Ashiq'.In the trading account of the pictures the assessee had shown profit of Rs. 77,896.51 and loss of Rs. 9,12,574.24 respectively. In view ...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Paramount Trading Corpn.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)98ITD77(Delhi)

1. These two appeals by the revenue are directed against the common order passed by the CIT(A) on 24-11-1995 in relation to assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. As both the appeals are based on identical facts and common grounds of appeal, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of these appeals by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The common grounds raised in both the appeals project the grievance of the revenue as under :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat 10 per cent of the interest income as business income for allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the rule of res judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings. 2. That the order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts of the case, the same may be set aside and the order of DC(A) may be restored to file.3. Briefly stated the facts of t...

National Agricultural Co-op. Vs. Joint Cit, Spl. Range 14

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT862(Delhi)

These are appeals by the assessee against a order dated 29-12-2000 passed by the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi relating to assessment year 1998-99.The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 1984. It is engaged in marketing of agricultural produce of its member societies. The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967, amended the 1961 Act, with effect from 1-4-1967. It introduced section 80P which provided for deduction with respect to income of co-operative societies. Sub-sections (1) and (2)(a)(iii) read as under: "(1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), they shall be deducted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section. The sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee.(2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely: the whole of the amount of profits and gains of busin...

D.C.i.T. (Asstt.), Spl. Range Vs. Paramount Trading Corpn.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The following point of difference has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act. Whether in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the profits of the business, as defined in Explanation (baa) below Section 80HHC refer to receipt of net interest? 2. I have heard both the sides and have also perused carefully the orders of the differing Members. The issue referred to me now stands concluded by the order of the Special Bench in the case of Lalsons Enterprises v. DCIT 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) (SB) wherein it has been held that for the purpose of Section 80HHC (4B), it is only 90% of the net interest remaining after allowing set off of the interest paid, that can be reduced from the business profit. The relevant discussion is contained in paragraphs 28 to 48 of the order of the Special Bench.Respectfully following the same, I agree with the learned Judicial Member and hold that the profits of the business as defined in Explanation (baa) below Se...