Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Techspan India Private Limited and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)550; [2006]283ITR212(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 10.2.2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') issued by the Income Tax Officer in respect of the Assessment Year 2001-2002. It is also directed against the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Income Tax Officer in response to the objections to the said notice of 10.2.2005 filed by the assessed (Petitioner No. 1). By virtue of this order dated 17.8.2005, the assessed's objections have been overruled and its request to drop proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the said Act have been rejected and the reassessment has been directed to be proceeded with. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that two issues arise for our consideration in this writ petition. The first issue relates to the maintainability of the writ petition for quashing a ...

Vikram Greenlands Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(203)ELT397(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner assails the validity of an order dated 13th July, 2004 passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission whereby the petitioner's application under Section 127B of the Customs Act has been dismissed. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of an order dated 31st May, 2005 passed by the said Commission whereby an application under Section 154 of the Customs Act seeking rectification of the earlier mentioned order has also been dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings may be summarised as under:2. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of breeding and maintaining race horses in a farm at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. In the course of its business, the petitioner imports Stallions and brood mares to produce off-springs which are eventually used for racing purposes. The petitioner's case, as set out in the writ petition, is that a Stallion n...

Bikanervala Vs. Aggarwal Bikaner Wala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT262

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The defendant was directed to be proceeded with ex parte by an order dated 15.4.2004 Thereafter, the plaintiff led its ex parte evidence by filing an affidavit by way of evidence of one Mr Raj Kumar Shah who is the duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff has also filed various documents which have been exhibited as Exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/93. The plaintiff has also filed an affidavit of the said Mr Raj Kumar Shah on 22.2.2006 vide diary No.5436. That affidavit is not on record. A copy of the same has been placed before me. The registry shall ensure that the affidavit is brought on record. The affidavit of 22.2.06 was necessitated because in the meanwhile the plaintiff has been issued the registration certificate in respect of the trade mark BIKANERVALA in class 30 in respect of sweets, namkeens, biscuits, cakes, pastry, ice-creams, confectionary etc. The application for the same was made on 1.1.2004 which was advertised in the Trade Marks J...

Sh. M.N. Arora Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT39

R.C. Jain, J. IA No. (to be numbered)1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condensation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay in filing the review application is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. is No.8730/20052. This is an application under Section 149 Read with Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure made on behalf of the respondent-DDA seeking review/modification/clarification of the order dated 14.7.2005 passed by this Court in CS (OS) No.2213A/1995. According to the applicant-DDA the award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 14.5.1997 was challenged by them on all the counts on which the amounts have been awarded to the petitioner-claimant including claim No.8 relating to the award of interest. Though the objections were disposed of by the order dated 14.7.2005 thereby upholding the Award so far as it allowed claims Nos. 2 and 3 of...

Thirani Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN45(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, the following substantial questions of law arise for determination:'1. Whether the appellant/assessed can rely upon the orders passed by the Tribunal previously after having made a concession before the Tribunal that the case in hand could be decided on merits independent of any such previous decisions ?2. Whether the Tribunal could have disagreed with the decision rendered earlier by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in relation to another assessment year in the light of the concession made by the parties ?3. Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expansion of the production capacity of the petitioners unit would not constitute setting up of an industrial undertaking eligible for the benefits of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act ?'The aforesaid questions arise in the circumstances indicated hereinbelow.2. The assessed has been engaged in the business of manufacturing Calcium Carb...

Northern Aromatics Ltd. Vs. Shahzeb Khan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ23

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner has filed CS(OS) No. 1903/1999 for recovery of Rs. 32,83,018 against M/s Bansal Cosmocare Ltd. It is, inter alia stated that the respondent admitted its liability vide letters dated 12th August, 1997 and 12th November, 1998. When the case was listed for admission/denial, these documents were admitted. Thereafter, the matter was posted before this Court on 1st October, 2001 and following order was passed:It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff that in terms of the admission made by the defendant in view of exhibit P-2 which is a letter dated 12.11.98 written by the defendant to the plaintiff wherein the defendant has admitted an amount of Rs. 27.65 lakhs to be the balance outstanding to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, a decree for a sum of Rs. 27.65 lakhs be passed. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Benati counsel for the defendant prays for some time to seek instructions.2. Thereafter, on 17th October, 2001, another order was passed whereby the r...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shyam Mill Board Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in allowing the appeal filed before him. The respondent has filed a "cross-objection" supporting the decision of the Commissioner. 5. I have carefully considered the facts on record, submissions made by the Appellant through appeal memo as well as during the course of personal hearing. I find that demand has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the basis of difference of "quantity of raw material mentioned to be adjusted in the Balance Sheet of 1994-95 vis-a-vis Form IV register. The department has not produced any evidence as regards to clandestine manufacture or clearance of the goods. It is also undisputed that the department had not found any stock difference based on the statutory records viz. Form-IV, RG-1 register etc, The only proof was that the admission of the Chartered Accountant of the appellant regarding difference on the face of the Balance Sheet which was confirmed by...

Commisssioner of Central Excise Vs. Nag Polypouches (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR223

2. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Commissioner, that refund due should be paid to the assessee not as Modvat credit: but in cash.3. The facts of the case are that, during an investigation, the respon-dent-assessee deposited Rs. 7 Lakh (Rs. 5 Lakh by way of cash and Rs. 2 Lakh by way of reversal of Modvat Credit). Ultimately, the dispute got settled and it was found that the assessee had paid Rs. 1,10,478/- in excess. It sought the return of the excess amount. In adjudication, the Dy. Commissioner ordered that the refund be given by way of credit in the CENVAT Account of the assessee. The assessee approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed that appeal with the following observations: I have gone through the documents placed on record and the citations. As per well-settled law, any payment made prior to issue of the notice, that too at the behest of the officers, shall be a pre-deposit and the assessee; entitled for refund. ...

Shri Om Pratap Soni Vs. Shri Rana Pratap Soni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT410; 2006(87)DRJ774

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 5013/2005 (under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC)1. This application has been filed by the defendant seeking framing of an additional issue as under:To what amount the plaintiff is liable to pay to the defendant for use and occupation of the suit premises from the date of filing of the suit.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition in respect of property No. 180, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. The stand which has been taken by the defendant is that the defendant is the sole owner of the property though it was purchased in the name of a partnership firm as the funds flowed from the defendant. Issues were framed on 17.2.2005.3. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant contends that the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) would apply to the present case if read together with Order 20 Rule 18 of the said Code. Rule 12 refers to a decree of possession and mesne profits and is made applicable where a s...

Sube Attri and ors. Vs. Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT710; 2006(87)DRJ696; 2006(3)SLJ478(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioners are working as Staff Nurses. They were directly recruited to those positions and at the relevant time were in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. The post of Public Health Nurse, in terms of recruitment regulations formulated by the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) carries a higher pay-scale (Rs. 455-700), (later revised as Rs.1640-29000.2. The petitioners applied in response to a circular dated 24.2.1992 for appointment to the post of Public Health Nurse. The educational qualifications indicated were B.Sc. in Nursing or that the candidate should have worked as 'A' Grade Nurse with Health Visitors Training from a recognised Institution. The age limit as notified in the circular read as follows:Age Limit: Not exceeding 30 years. (Relaxable by 15 years for MCD Employees.3. It is the admitted case of the parties that all the petitioners were issued interview letters/calls and were found suitable fo...