Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Khanna Hosiery and Knitting Work Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT47

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.11.2004, by which the petition was dismissed and against the order dated 18.03.2005 by which the Review Petition was also dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. By means of the Writ Petition in the year 2003, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondent/DDA to make allotment of an Industrial plot in favor of the petitioner based on his application dated 15.10.1966. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner was running its industrial units in a non-conforming area of Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The DDA in 1966 took out a scheme for allotment of industrial plots to the persons who were running their industrial units in a non-conforming area. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner applied vide application form No. 7165 dated 15.10.1966, Annexure P1 to the writ petition and he also deposited a sum of Rs. 1250/- ...

United Airlines Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR281(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the CIT, dt. 16th Dec, 1999 under Section 264 of the IT Act.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioner is an airline incorporated in USA. Its aircrafts land at Indira Gandhi International Airport. The short question in the case is whether the landing and parking charges can be deemed to be rent under Section 194-I, Expln. (i) of the IT Act.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landing and parking charges cannot be treated as rent within the aforesaid provision.5. Explanationn (i) of Section 194-I of the IT Act reads as follows:(i) 'rent' means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sublease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building (including factory building), together with furniture, fittings and the land appurtenant thereto, whether or not such building is owned by the payee;6. ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR479(Delhi)

1. The respondent-assessed is engaged in the business of operating cellular mobile telephone services. In terms of a license awarded in its favor for operation of the said services in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal, the assessed was required to provide finance and performance (of) bank guarantees to the Department of Telecommunications. The assessed appears to have arranged these bank guarantees from IFCL, NICL and Lord Krishna Bank. These institutions had in connection with the furnishing of the guarantees required deposit of margin money by the assessed, Interest earned/accrued on these margin money deposits became the subject-matter of a dispute in the asst. yr. 1996-97. The AO was of the view that interest on such deposits had to be taxed as income from other sources. Reliance was in support of that view placed by the AO on a Supreme Court decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]227ITR172(SC) .2. In appeal, the view taken...

Jai Shree Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Panipat Roadlines Regd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant booked goods with the respondent-firm for transportation from Delhi to Samalkha through 11 GRs between 1.7.1998 and 16.9.1998. The total cost of the goods as per invoice was Rs. 1,64,125. The consignments were a self-consignment and were, therefore, to be delivered to the appellant itself. 2. Complaint of the appellant alleging that the respondent did not deliver the consignment as per instructions and instead delivered them without retirement of the documents by the invoicee, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.5.2000 on the ground that possibility of the appellant having given verbal instructions for delivery of the consignment to the invoicee parties without production of the GRs cannot be ruled out. Through this appeal the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that he did not give any verbal instructions and the respondent failed to produce any evidence or documentary proof and even otherwise as per the terms of t...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. U.T. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard ld. Counsel. In this case the applicant filed this application for recalling of the final order on the ground that the notice for the appeal filed by the Revenue was issued on the old address whereas the applicant vide letter dated 22-4-2002 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad change of address. In this letter it was specifically mentioned that there are many cases pending against the applicant at different level. In view of this, it is informed that for further correspondence be made at the new address. In spite of this Revenue filed this appeal and the address of the respondent in the appeal memo at the old address and notice was also issued to the old address. In these circumstances, as applicants informed by the revenue regarding the change of address in spite of this appeal was filed showing old address by the Revenue. Therefore, final order dated 29-7-2005 is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number.The Registry is directed to this ...

Samtel Color Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty as well as of penalty. The other applicants filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties only.3. In this case, the demand is confirmed on M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. by denying the credit in respect of picture tubes received from M/s Samtel Color Ltd. The Revenue is of the view that M/s Samtel Color Ltd. knowingly paid higher duty in respect of the picture tubes to pass on the excess credit to M/s L.G. Electronics. The contention of the Revenue is that M/s Samtel Color Ltd. manufacturer of tubes is paying duty on the transaction value but subsequently issuing some credit notes in favour of M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the price mentioned in the invoices on which duty has been paid is not the real transaction value and in fact the real transaction value is lower than the price mentioned in the invoices.4. The contention of the applicant is tha...

D.C. Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of MS ingots and was working under compounded levy scheme during the period September, 1997 to March, 2000. Under the present order, duty demand of over Rs. 1,20,965/- and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant did not discharged full duty liability due in 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. The explanation of the assessee was that it was entitled to abatement of duty for the period 2.12.1997 to 9.12.1997 and 30.9.1998 to 15.10.1998. The Commissioner allowed the abatement for the period from 30.9.1998 to 15.10.1998 and rejected the claim for the earlier period on the ground that the same had been rejected by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh on 16.11.1998. The appellant's submission is that no such order of rejection had been received by it. In order to verify the factual position, the learned Departmental Representative was requested to make available the relevant record of the Commissionerate. Today file C. No. IV (16) C. ...

Dynamic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of automobile parts, item being "door trims". These are supplied as original equipment to automobile manufacturers like Daewoo Motors India Ltd., Hindustan Motors India Ltd., Ashok Leyland Ltd., etc. Some consignments so supplied are returned by the recipient as rejects. The appellant has been taking credit of the duty paid on such items, thereafter repairing and remaking such rejected items and clearing them on payment of duty.Under the impugned order, Modvat credit of Rs. 1,16,587/- has been denied in respect of door trims so received back. The reason for such denial of credit is that Mr. K. M. Gupta, Finance Manager of the Company, had stated in the proceedings on 15-6-2001 that the rejected materials are destroyed being received in depleted condition or non-usable or non-repairable condition.2. The submissions of the learned Counsel is that the finding reached was entirely based on the statement of Shri K.M.Gupta and is not correct at all. Learne...

Comecon Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Spl. Range 1

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)8SOT82(Delhi)

This appeal of the assessee-company is directed against the order dated 17-12-1998 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi for assessment year 1992-93. In substance, all the grounds of appeal relate to the disallowance of depreciation on the assets given on lease by the assessee.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that during the year the assessee had entered into purchase and leased back agreements as follows: In June, 1991 SIL approached the assessee for leasing of five sugar mills rollers. These were purchased by SIL from BHEL in February, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 6,08,400 + Rs. 9,12,600. Subsequently, SIL got some machining work done by M/s. United Engineering Works who charged Rs. 20,000 per shaft. Thus the total cost of SIL came to Rs. 16,21,000.Against this assessee had shown the cost at Rs. 41.25 lakhs. The assessing officer found that lease with SIL had expired in September, 1994 but the assessee had not taken possession of leased asset in accordance with the lease agreement. T...

Vatavaran Trust Vs. Joint Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)129

1. These are appeals filed by the assessee against the orders, dt. 30th Jan., 2004 of the CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi, relating to asst. yrs.1996-97 to 2000-01. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO imposing penalty on the assessee under Section 272A(2) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty came to be imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are as follows: 2. The assessee is a registered trust. The assessee was issued a certificate under Section 12A(a) of the Act on 26th March, 1996, to have effect from 15th June, 1995. For the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessee filed a return of income on 20th Aug., 2001. The provisions of Section 139(4A), read as follows: (4A) Every person in receipt of income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred ...