Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Jct Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT59TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In the present appeal, the Revenue wants to add notional interest on advance received from the customers to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents.3. We find that in the impugned order there is a specific finding that the sale price of goods is the same for the customers who had made security deposit and those who had not made such deposit. In view of this factual finding as the Revenue failed to show that the security deposit has influenced the price charged by the appellant, therefore, the appeal is dismissed....

Hc Sh. Veer Bhan Vs. Commissioner of Police, Jt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By invoking jurisdiction before this Tribunal, applicant, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, impugns respondents "order dated 2.5.2005, whereby, after a departmental enquiry (DE), applicant has been imposed upon a major punishment of permanent forfeiture of five years" approved service with consequent reduction in pay. Also assailed is appellate order dated 10.08.2005, whereby punishment has been reduced to a minor penalty of censure.2. Applicant, along with other police officials, has been proceeded against for a major penalty on the allegation that on a PRG raid conducted by Inspector Hira Lal on 18.3.2004 it had been found during enquiry that one Karambir along with his associate used to collect illegal money from the vehicle drivers and used to allegedly pay the same to applicant. A pocket diary recovered during the raid contains number of applicant.3. During the course of enquiry Karambir and Raj Kapoor have not been cited as witnesses and all the witnesses except PRG raid offi...

Yash Pal Bajaj Vs. Gift Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Delhi)294

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 20th Feb., 2004 for the asst. yr. 1998-99 in the matter of order passed under Section 15(3) of the GT Act, 1958 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the impugned assessment under GT Act, 1958 is bad in law and against the facts, and consequential reassessment order, being, inter alia, without jurisdiction, is thus nullity and ought to have been cancelled. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CGT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of learned AO in taxing a sum of Rs. 3,79,600 as deemed gift contrary to facts and law. 3. That in any case and in view of the matter computation of taxable gift at Rs. 3,79,600 and impugned reassessment order is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case...

Mahesh Chand JaIn Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)XXXVIII, New Delhi, dated 27-10-2004.2. The only issue in appeal is against disallowance of a sum of Rs. 11,69,850 being foreign travelling expenses incurred in respect of foreign travelling of two employees who also happened to be son and daughter-in-law of the assessee.3. The appellant is a proprietor of M/s Rajesh Bag Industries. It is engaged in business of trading of non-woven fabrics of polyester, knitted fabrics used in the manufacture of travelling bags. The assessing officer noted that Shri Sachin Jain and Smt. Shruti Jain, who are son and daughter-in-law of the appellant are shown as employees.They visited China, Taiwan and Thailand together. Shri Sachin Jain also visited Hong Kong and Thailand alone. The assessing officer required the presence of Smt. Shruti Jain. Since she was not presented for examination before assessing officer, the expenses in respect of her visit were not allowed...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Allied Construction

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)291ITR16(Delhi)

1. Income-tax Appeal Nos. 3458 and 3459/Del/2001 are the appeals by the Revenue against the order dt. 30th May, 2001 of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, relating to the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. The assessee has filed CO Nos. 143 and 144/Del/2005 against the aforesaid orders of the CIT(A).2. The facts and circumstances under which these appeals as well as cross-objections arise are as follows: The assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of execution of civil construction works for U.P. State Government and Rajasthan State Government. For asst. yr. 1997-98, a return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 1,41,930. The return was accompanied by audited trading account, P&L a/c, balance sheet and report of auditor. During the previous year the assessee derived receipts from three sources, namely, contract receipts, hire charges and interest. Contract receipts were shown in the trading account and other receipts were shown in P&L a/c. Gros...

Pondy Metal and Rolling Mills (P) Vs. Deputy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The first ground of appeal relates to the order sustaining the addition of Rs. 22,80,404 made by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b)(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Briefly stated, facts are that the assessee company converts the mild steel ingots into rolled products called the twisted deformed bars. The factory of the assessee company is located in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, which is notified as an industrially backward area for the purpose of Section 80-IA.3. In the course of verification of purchase of raw material which are steel ingots, it was found by the assessing officer that the entire purchase of raw material was made by the assessee from M/s. Mittal Ispat Ltd. (MIL) and M/s. Sharda Casting Ltd. (SCL). It was found that the average purchase price from M/s. MIL per metric ton w...

Piccadily Agro Ind. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of assessee is directed against the order dated 5-5-2003 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (A), Kamal for the assessment year 1998-99.2. to 13. (These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.) 3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the action of A.A. in charging the interest under sections 234B and 234C in respect of income computed under Section 115JA of the Act as the appellant disputes the basic charging of interest in respect of income computed under Section 115 JA." Briefly stated facts are that the assessing officer levied the interest under sections 234B and 234C while computing the income of assessee by observing as under: During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessees counsel contended that without prejudice to the contention that there would be negative book profit after reducing the amount of incentive and neither any tax nor interest was chargeable, no interest under sections 234B and 234C ...

ito Vs. Amar Lal

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue and a cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-9-2001. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal relate to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that enhanced compensation against which security has been offered, and on which interest was received, was not liable to tax in the year under appeal.2. The ld. D.R. at the time of the hearing submitted that the issue stands covered by the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Padam Prakash (HUF) (2006) 10 SOT 1, where it has been held that enhanced compensation is to be taxed on receipt basis and it would not make any difference whether compensation is received as per interim order or on certain conditions or without any condition. It has further held that where the assessee's land was acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced compensation was granted to the assessee by the Appellate Court,...

Orbitel Communication (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Delhi)112

1. With this consolidated order we shall dispose of these two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, passed in Appeal Nos. 160/2004-05 and 158/2004-05 dt. 13th June, 2005 because in both these appeals the main issue involved is regarding the non-admission of these appeals by the CIT(A) treating these appeals as non est. The appeal for asst. yr. 2001-02 has been filed by the assessee against the confirmation of the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. The second appeal for the same assessment year has been filed by the assessee against the sustaining of the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144 of the IT Act, 1961.2. In brief, the facts relating to non-admission of these appeals by the CIT(A) against the penalty order as well as against the sustaining of assessment framed by the AO under Section 144 of the Act are that on perusal of Form No. 35, the CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had obt...

Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit, Spl. Range-4

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108ITD80(Delhi)

1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, we dispose of these appeals by this composite order for the sake of convenience.2. The common issue involved in these appeals relate to the order confirming the action of the assessing officer in thrusting exemption under Section 10B of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of Floppy Unit II when the claim for exemption under the said section in respect of the said unit was withdrawn.3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a company manufacturing floppy discs. The assessee-company claimed exemption to the income of Floppy Unit II in assessment year 1994-95 as the initial year for claim of this exemption. In the present assessment year the assessee again claimed exemption under Section 10B but at the same time it had claimed depr...