Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are filed by Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana and Shri Debdeep Sinha against the order of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. None appeared for appellants despite notice and case being on Board, hence appears are being decided on the basis of evidence on record.2. One Jaguar car was imported under bill of entry No. 134994 dated 17.11.2003 by Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana. M/s.GCL Shipping Ltd., Customs House agents filed a bill of entry alongwith the necessary documents like bill of lading, invoices, certificate from M/s. R.A.Creamer & Sons Ltd. stating that vehicle is brand new and not registered in UK or any other place and affidavit of Shri Mohammed Ibrahim Kanyana declaring that he has been continuously residing abroad since 1998 and he has come to India for permanent settlement on 24.4.2003 and has imported one new unregistered Jaguar car giving the detail of model. Based on documents the vehicle was examined and on examination it appeared that the declarations...

Harshvardhan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Harshvardhan Exports Private Limited against Order-in-Original No. 05/NP/2004 dated 31-3-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-1. On receipt of specific information that M/s. Riya Fashions are procuring and selling, illicitly diverted duty free imported polyester fabrics by certain 100% EOU's, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence visited their godown premises and during verification of the goods lying in the said premises noticed certain rolls of polyester fabrics of foreign origin duly packed in bundles lying there. Shri Kirti Kumar Ottamchand Doshi, proprietor said that the fabrics lying in the said godown premises were imported duty free by certain 100% EOU units and the same were diverted into local market, without payment of customs duty leviable thereon. He admitted that he had not received any duty payment documents i.e. invoices, delivery challans, bill of entry, etc. along with goods. On physical ...

Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)943

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 15th Sept., 2005 against the order of the learned CIT(A), Rohtak, dt. 14th July, 2005 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 for asst. yr. 2000-01. In this appeal the main disputes relate to initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and additions to the book profit as sustained by the learned CIT(A) in the computation of assessee's income chargeable to tax under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act.2. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee filed return of income on 28th Nov., 2000 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,23,94,225 under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act. This return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 18th Dec, 2000. On the basis of this return a refund of Rs. 39,80,007 was found due under Section 143(1) on 18th Dec, 2000. The refund was accordingly issued. The AO did not issue any notice under Sect...

Mohan Meakins Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)359

1. By this consolidated order, we shall dispose of all the three appeals filed by the assessee against three orders of CIT(A), Delhi, all relating to the asst. yr. 1988-89 as the issue involved in all these appeals is common.2. The first issue raised in ITA No. 5206/Del/1994 is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order of the AO in not allowing interest under Section 214 of the Act on the total amount of refund of Rs. 77,20,772 from 1st April, 1988 to the date of grant of actual refund. The second grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in not deciding the ground relating to grant of interest on refund of interest of Rs. 11,58,105 in terms of Section 244(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Same ground is taken in ITA No. 5089/Del/1994 where the effective issue raised is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in not allowing interest under Section 214 of the Act on the excess amount of advance tax determined at Rs. 77,20,...

Mahender Singh and Party Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)590

These appeals by the assesses are against the orders dt. 6th Nov., 2002 and 14th Nov., 2002 of learned GIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi. The solitary ground raised in both these appeals is as under: The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 9,45,398 under Section 40A(3). The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 7,00,232 under Section 40A(3).2. In ITA No. 712/Del/2002 briefly the facts are that the assessee is an AOP carrying on business of sale of country liquor, beer and Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) in the District Jodhpur under a license issued by the Excise Department of Government of Rajasthan. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased country liquor from Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills, an undertaking of Rajasthan State Government after depositing cash and other levies. The IMFL and beer has been purchased from M/s Jai Santoshi Wine, Jodhpur, amounting to Rs. 77,21,479. The assessee also received ...

Ongc Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Delhi)551

1. This appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 21st July, 2004 of the learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun, raises the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun, has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the appellant's contention that the receipts of the non-resident were taxable under Section 44BB of the IT Act, 1961, and not as 'fees for technical services' under Section 44D r/w Section 115A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun, has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the AO's order on the issues of withdrawal of interest under Section 244A and charging of interest under Section 234D.2. Briefly, the facts are that ONGC Ltd. filed return declaring income of Rs. 15,490 in its capacity as representative assessee of M/s Baker Hughes Process Systems, U.K., in the status of non-resident company, hereinafter referred as "NRC". The NRC vide work order No.MRBC/OBGSHP/PWC/08, dt. 20th May, 1998 ...

Bindal Apparels Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)950

1. This appeal by assessee against the order dt. 30th Dec, 2002 of learned CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, raises the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that in the absence of an order in writing passed by the CIT as required under Section 120(4)(m) of the Act, the Addl. CIT(A) cannot be AO under Section 2(7A) and hence the assessment order passed by her is null and void. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment is liable to be quashed as the same has been passed by the Addl. CIT despite the fact that such authority is given to the Addl. CIT for making an assessment under the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned C...

K.M. Anees-ul-haq and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT773; I(2006)DMC641NULL; 2006(88)DRJ455

Manju Goel, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners who are accused in FIR No.260/2001 P.S. Mayur Vihar under Sections 406/420/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act seeks quashment of the FIR and consequent proceedings. Although several grounds have been mentioned in the petition, at the time of hearing the only ground pressed is that of limitation and accordingly the petition will be disposed of only on the question of limitation.2. The petitioners' counsel submitted that the offence made out against the petitioners is only under Section 406 IPC as well as under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that on the date the FIR was filed or cognizance taken both the offences were time barred. thereforee, the real question is what offence is made out in the FIR. The complainant in the FIR is Shri Abdul Rehman. The gist of the FIR is as under:The complainant/respondent No.2 met petitio...

Food Corporation of India Vs. Subhash Chander Laxmi NaraIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR161(Delhi); 2006(89)DRJ111

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner, Food Corporation of India, (FCI) has filed its objections against the award passed on 23.06.1997 by the sole arbitrator in arbitration case RNM-1/95(FCI) titled Food Corporation of India v. M/s Subhash Chander Laxmi Naraian. The objections have been preferred under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. Before I set out the objections raised by the petitioner/claimant, it would be necessary to point out as to what was the nature of the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. It appears that a Notice Inviting Tender had been published by the petitioner in respect of lifting of arhar (gram) whole by independent parties for the purposes of milling and converting the same into arhar dal. There is no dispute that in response to the said Notice Inviting Tender, the respondent had submitted its tender and the same had been accepted by the petitioner by virtue of a telegram (Exhi...

Mr. V.K. Goyal Vs. Ordinance Co-op. G/H Society Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT792; 2006(88)DRJ542

Vijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Award/order dated 31.3.2005 passed in Case No.F.ARB./AB./03/-04/117 by respondent No.2 under Section 60 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and order dated 2.2.2006 in Appeal Case No.67/05-DCT passed by respondent No.3 in an appeal under Section 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner allegedly obtained from respondent No. 4 the membership of respondent No. 1/Society for a valuable consideration on 27.7.1994 with delivery of possession of flat in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that possession of the flat in question was handed over by the Society to him and after getting possession of the same, he got the aforesaid flat converted into freehold from D.D.A. after `No Due Certificate' was given by respondent No.1/Society.3. On 23.3.2000, the respondent No.1/Society raised a demand...