Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Sharma Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against the recovery of Rs. 2,55,059/- towards Service Tax for the period October, 1999 to March, 2004.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding adjustment of Service Tax payable by the applicants and the Service Tax which was paid by them on the cancelled tickets. The applicant is an Air Travel Agent. It seems that there is a Board Circular which authorizes Air Travel Agents to adjust the commission and the Service Tax thereon automatically. The issue is arguable one. Since the applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- at the time of hearing before the Commissioner Appeals, I consider that amount as enough pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. The penalty involved in this case is Rs. 100/-. Since the applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/-, recovery of the balance amount of Service Tax and the penalty imposed on them is stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Shri Arun Kumar Sikka and Asa Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC137

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/8/2005 wherein the adjudicating authority has rejected the application for renewal of C.H.A. Licence.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant was CHA functioning under the licence No. 41/87 granted to him. The said licence was valid up to 15/5/2001. The appellant did not apply for the renewal of the licence before the expiry, instead applied for the renewal on 17th February 2005. The reason cited for delay in application for renewal was that the proprietor of the appellant had a massive backbone problem due to which he was paralyzed. The adjudicating authority after granting a personal hearing came to conclusion that the licence of the appellant cannot be renewed for the reason that they have not fulfilled the conditions for renewal and that appellant has not intimated the department about serious illness of the appellant. Hence this appeal.3. The learned advocate appearing the appellant fairly subm...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Parker Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-original dated 6-10-2004 that dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent exported Hand Tools valued at Rs. 2,34,75,035/- under DEPB scheme vide 13 different shipping bills. Out of total value as indicated above the respondent could not bring in Foreign exchange of Rs. 1,79,61,955/- and admitted to the fact that they had forged the BRCs and availed the benefit of DEPB. In some cases Foreign Exchange were subsequently realized. The authorities issued show cause notice to the respondent for confiscation of the goods exported and for imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The main allegation of the department is that the respondent had not realized the Foreign Exchange as per the declaration filed by him and has forged the Bank Realization Certificates to avail ineligible benefits of DEPB based on these forged BRCs....

Hanemp Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD19(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 30.9.2005 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-XV, New Delhi dated 22.8.2005 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for assessment year 1997-98.2. Grounds of appeal No. 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal are directed against initiation of proceedings Under Section 147 of the Act. Facts of the case in this respect briefly are that in this case search operations Under Section 132 were carried out at the premises of the assessee on 20.8.1996. Thereafter a block assessment order Under Section 158BC determining disclosed income at Rs. 36,95,428/- was made on 29.8.1997 for the block period 1.4.1986 to 20.8.1996. In this block assessment the undisclosed income was determined on account of the alleged undisclosed investments made by the assessee in relation to two properties in Tuglakabad Extension, Viz., RZ-11-C, Gali No. 5 and RZ-1/32, Gali No. 4. The assessee claimed to have pur...

Cascade Enterprises Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)277

This is the bunch of four appeals filed by the assessee against consolidated order dated 5-12-2002 of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 and another order dated 16-9-2004 of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2001-02. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.First we take up appeals in ITA Nos. 678, 679 and 680 of 2003 for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 which arise from the same order of Commissioner (Appeals) and the issue involved is the same. In the original grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken only one ground, i.e., Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in reducing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-0 on net basis instead of gross basis claimed by the assessee. The assessee also raised two additional grounds common to these three ap...

Anupam Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)119

1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, arises out of CIT(A)'s order dt.28th March, 2002 relating to asst. yr. 1998-99.2. Shri Ved Jam, FCA along with Smt. Rama Jain, chartered accountant appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Shantanu Dhamija, Departmental Representative, appeared on behalf of the Revenue.3. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no specific adjudication, That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 12,54,388 being the amount incurred as business development expenses, which is not based on any facts and is illegal.5. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of fabrics. On examination of the P&L a/c during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed business development expenses at Rs. 12,54,388. The AO directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenses and allowability. It was explained by the assessee that the assessee was manufacturing fa...

Everplus Securities and Finance Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD151(Delhi)

1. ITA No. 2422/Del/2004 by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi dt. 24th March, 2004 for the asst. yr.2001-02 on the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 3,93,69,566 alleged to have been incurred on deployment of borrowed funds in holding dividend-earning shares. 2. The authorities below wrongly interpreted the provisions of Sections 14A and 115-O(5) of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that shares of appellant were merely investments and if the same helps the appellant to control the management of Jindal group of companies, it cannot partake the character of a business activity. This finding is erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures. 4. The authorities below should have held that entire interest outgo is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 6. The AO ought to have determined the losses to be carried forward in accordance with law. 7. The appellant p...

Capital Gem Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD117(Delhi)

1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, arises out of CIT(A)'s order dated 18.2.2005 relating to A.Y. 2001-02.2. Shri Salil Agarwal Advocate along with Shri P.C. Yadav appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Avinash Mishra Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue.3. Ground Nos. 1 & 1.1: These grounds challenge the validity of the notice issued Under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is alleged that the assessment made Under Section 143(3) deserves to be quashed as no notice Under Section 143(2) had been served upon the assessee within the statutory period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed by the assessee. In ground No. 1.1 it is alleged that in absence of any material the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in holding that the proceedings were validly initiated and the assessment framed was in accordance with law.4. The facts, as emerging out from the assessment order, are that the Assessing Officer issued first notice on 16.10....

Amrit Pal Singh Vs. Jasmit Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi213; 128(2006)DLT523

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 527/2005 is directed against the order dated 15.03.2006 of the Guardian judge, Delhi in Guardianship petition no. 97/2004, whereby the learned Judge disposed of an application moved under Section 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act along with the main petition under Section 6 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, handing over the custody of both children of the family, to the mother/respondent herein.2. Brief facts of the case as noted down by the Guardian Judge, Delhi are as follows:-.petitioner was married to respondent on 19.01.1997 at Delhi and two children were born out of the wedlock on 6.10.1997 and 19.07.2001. The elder one is Master Gurnoor Singh and younger one is Master Arshnoor Singh. It is alleged that since the inception of the marriage, petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of unlawful demands of dowry. Repeated demands were raised by the respondent and petitioner's parents kept on fulfilling the same....

Shri Brijesh Sharma Vs. the Liquidator, Super Bazar, the Co-operative ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ497

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner in these writ proceedings has challenged an order dated 10.3.2003 issued by the respondent (his employer, Super Bazar), dismissing him from the services.2. The petitioner was employed by the Super Bazar Co-operative Store Limited; he had applied for a vacancy in the post of 'Counter Salesman' pursuant to an advertisement, on 2.1.1975. While applying for the post, he had relied upon the certificate issued by Drugs Controller, Delhi Administration being certificate No. 8/69-DS-9774, dated 31.12.1969. He claimed working experience of 8 years. The Super Bazar had issued a letter of offer which was accepted by him.3. The petitioner was issued with a certificate dated 3.5.1978 by the Delhi Pharmacy Council as per Form-F under Rule 65(1) read with Section 32B of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereafter 'the Act') as amended, in 1976.4. On 3.3.2000, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had failed to submit his basic educational qualificati...