Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Cit Vs. Hemla Hoziery Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)172

Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 inter alias provides that if on the date fixed for hearing, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. Rule 25 similarly empowers the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal after hearing the appellant if the respondent does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing. ITA Nos. 4703 and 4081/1997 which happen to be cross-appeals filed by the revenue and the assessed were heard and disposed of on merits by the Tribunal by its order dated 13-11-2003. A perusal of the said order would show that while ITA No. 4703/1997 filed by the revenue was allowed, ITA No. 4081/1997 filed by the assessed was dismissed. The assessed thereafter moved MA No. 179/2005 seeking recall of the said order and restoration of the appeals. The Tribunal has by the order impugned in this appeal allowed the said application, se...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Icon Controls (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)592

1. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in K.C. Builders and Anr. v. Asstt. CIT : [2004]265ITR562(SC) , the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have deleted the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) and Tribunal had both concurrently held that the assessed in the instant case did not make any conscious attempt to conceal his income or evade the tax which was, in terms of the decision taken in K.C. Builder's case (supra), one of the essential conditions that required to be kept in mind while imposing penalty. The Tribunal has in this regard observed as under:In the present case, having regard to the conduct of the assessed we are unable to say that there was any conscious concealment or desire or attempt to evade the imposition of tax. The decision of the CIT(A) to cancel the penalty is accordingly upheld and the appeal of the Department is dismissed.2. In the light of the concurrent findings recorded by the CIT(A) and Tribunal that the mistake in not add...

Shri Rajesh Sharma and Shri Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC311

1. Both the appeals arise out of the same order in adjudication.Therefore, they were taken up together and are disposed of under this common order.2. We have perused the record and heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellant Shri Rajesh Sharma. In regard to appellant Shri Krishan Kumar, Counsel is not present despite notice.3. The material facts leading to the passing of the impugned order (under which both the appellants have been penalised.) are that during May 1998, 3 ready-made garment consignments were exported from Ludiana, One M/s Indeep Implex, Ludhiana was the exporter and M/s Pooja Travels and Cargo Services, Ludhiana was the Custom House Agent in regard to the consignments. The consignments were declared at a total value of about Rs. 2.3 crores. The exporter was paid a drawback amount of about Rs. 40 lakhs towards these consignments.4. Subsequently, one of the consignments was auctioned at the Port of the import Dubai for a paltry amount of Rs. 60,000/- (1% of the exp...

Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 3.10.05 wherein the appellants were directed to reverse the Ccnvat credit availed on the inputs.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants arc manufacturer of cables and availed benefit of Ccnvat on the inputs. The appellants manufactured their final products and subsequently found that their final products bail in the quality parameters and are unmarketable excisable goods. The appellants made an application for remission of duty on these unmarketable excisable goods. The Office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal vide order dt. 3.10.05 permitted the remission of duty to the appellants and directed them to destroy the finished products by cutting them into pieces subject to conditions. The appellants have no diffieulty in adhering to two conditions, the only condition by which the appellant is aggrived is that the office of the Commissioner has directed the appellant to reverse th...

C.C., Icd Vs. Nagesh Hosiery Export Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC438

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in Appeal dated 14.10.2004 wherein interest was awarded to the respondents on their refund claim after 3 months from the date of filing of refund claim.2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents filed refund claim for Rs. 2,79,129/- on 10.4.1989 on account of payment of excess duty. The appellants imported secondhand machinery and sought benefit of notification No. 21/88-Cus dated 1.3.88 which granted exemption from payment of customs duty which is in excess of 35% of the value. However, the department did not allow the benefit of notification and machineries were assessed at 45% Advalorem. The respondents paid the duty as assessed and filed an appeal against the assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and accordingly the respondents were eligible for the refund of the excess duty paid by them. The respondents were refunded the amount of duty excess paid by ...

D.S. Constructions Limited Vs. Rites Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi98; III(2006)BC82; 2006(1)CTLJ123(Del); 127(2006)DLT1

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Initially, the application [IA No. 11121/2003] under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was argued on 30.11.2005 and orders were reserved. The counsel also sought time to take instructions as to whether the suit itself could be disposed of at this stage. On 05.12.2005 the counsel responded by saying that it could. The following issues were framed:-1. Whether any contract/agreement came into existence between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1?2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is entitled to invoke the Bank Guarantee?3. Relief.And, it was submitted that the arguments advanced at the hearing of the said application be treated as arguments in the suit and the same be disposed of. It is so being disposed of by this judgment.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a declaratory decree as well as a decree for permanent injunction. The declaration that is sought by the plaintiff is that no agreement / contract has come into being between the plaintiff and the def...

Kavita Enterprises, Car Park Contractor Vs. Airports Authority of Indi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT152

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These objections have been filed under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') by the petitioner/claimant in respect of the award made by the sole Arbitrator Mr R.V. Narayanan on 10.12.1997. The award was filed and in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act notices were issued and it is on the basis of that that the petitioner filed his objections on 05.01.2002. Essentially, the petitioner has objected to the findings of the Arbitrator in respect of claims 1 and 4. His claim Nos. 2, 3 and 5 have been partly allowed and he has no dispute with the findings of the Arbitrator and the amounts awarded under those heads.2. The entire dispute pertains to an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent [Airports Authority of India (AAI)] for the running of the Car Park at Terminal No. 1 of the IGI Airport, New Delhi. In essence, the agreement was that the petitioner / claimant would mana...

interglobe Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT589; 2006(203)ELT202(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Issue Rule. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor General appears for the respondents. With consent, this petition has been heard for final disposal.2. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has, in the course of an investigation initiated by it, seized three out of seven luxury cars imported by the petitioner under what is known as b Export Promotion Capital Goods Schemeb ('EPCG' for short). Aggrieved, the petitioner has rushed to this Court not only for release of the seized cars but also for quashing of the on going investigation. The controversy arises in the following backdrop.3. The petitioner-company is a service provider engaged in the business of arranging international tours and travels. Apart from being the general sale agent of 14 international airlines, the petitioner claims to be engaged in providing sales, reservation and other allied customer services to its clients.4. In terms of section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, th...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tej Quebecor Printing Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)444; 129(2006)DLT110; [2006]281ITR170(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J. 1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'), arise out of a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99, and shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondent joint venture company employed one Mr. Lester Garnett, a Canadian national at a fixed remuneration with perquisite of rent free accommodation, car with driver and a servant. The said employee filed his individual tax return and paying taxes on the same under Section 140A of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed from a perusal of the bank account of the employee and the TDS return filed by the assessed that no salary had been paid to the employee nor any deduction under Section 192 made by the respondent-assessed. The Assessing Officer accordingly held the assessed company to be in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Liability arising on account of interest @ 15% p.a. for different peri...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)426; 129(2006)DLT237; [2006]281ITR346(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J. 1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, inter alia, holding that in the absence of any material change in the facts, the view taken by the authorities for the earlier assessment years would continue to hold good on the principles of consistency. The Revenue has assailed the correctness of that finding in the present appeal. 2. The assessed-company was incorporated on 24th February, 1989 with the object of carrying on business in the development of real estate. It appears to have entered into an agreement in February, 1989 with Edward Keventer Pvt. Ltd. and taken over the responsibility of re-development of land owned by the said company. It also entered into an agreement with M/s.Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in March, 1989 and with M/s.Ashoka Builders in June 1989. Pursuant to the said agreements the assessed had received a sum of Rs. 5 crores from M/s.Ballapur Industries Ltd. and Rs. 2 crores from M/s.Ashoka Builders, subject to cer...