Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

L.G. Electronics (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT244TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 12.2.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise whereby the benefit of SSI exemption notification was denied on the around that for the previous financial year, the clearances by the appellant are more than Rs. 3 crores.2. The contention of the appellants is that benefit was denied for the year 1998-99 whereas in the previous year 1997-98, the appellants were getting the goods manufactured on job work basis from M/s Dixon Utilities & Exports Ltd. and the goods manufactured by Dixon Utilities & Exports Ltd. cannot be considered as manufactured by the appellant.Therefore, as the appellant had not produced the goods during the year 1997-98, they are eligible for SSI exemption for the year 1998-99.3. Revenue has brought to our notice that Show-cause Notice was issued on 30.9.99 demanding duty from the appellant treating as real manufacturer and not M/s. Dixon Utilities & Expor...

Mrs. Madhu Garg and anr. Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT213; 2006(88)DRJ595

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.11.2005 by which six writ petitions were disposed of.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the detailed judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The short question in these appeals is that if there are electricity dues against the owner of a premises who transfers the premises to a new owner, can the new owner be compelled to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner, and can the electricity department / company refuse to supply electricity to the premises for such non-payment.5. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied on the Supreme Court decision in Isha Marbles case v. Bihar State electricity Board : [1995]1SCR847 . We have carefully perused the said decision. In that decision the facts were that the previ...

Yashpal Vs. Chamanlal Sachdeva

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT200; 2006(89)DRJ78

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 192 of 2001 challenges order dated 22.1.2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in R.C.A. No. 47 of 1997 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the appeal holding - the appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The respondent shall deposit the rent up-to-date in the court below within one month of the date of this order. In case of any dispute about non-deposit of the rent, they shall appear before this Court so that controversy about the rent up-to-date is finally settled. In the event deposit is to the satisfaction of the appellant, benefit of Section 14(2) DRC Act shall be extended to the respondent and in the event it is not up to the satisfaction, final appropriate order shall be passed by this Court in the event in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are as follows :1. An eviction petition was preferred by the appellant against the respondent u/s 14(1)(a) r/w Section 14(1)(c) of the DRC ...

Mrs. Kamla Devi Vs. Haji Amir Mohd. Mir Ahmed

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT398; 2006(88)DRJ463

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.C.S.A.28/2001 seeks to challenge the order dated 10.05.2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No.110/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal setting aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi vide its judgment dated 01.05.1993 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. Brief facts of the case as noted from the written submissions of counsel for the petitioner are as follows:The appellant preferred an eviction petition against the respondent on 3.5.1985 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant pleaded that the respondent was inducted as tenant by the predecessor of the appellant Shir Pooran Chand on 1.7.1969 in a godown measuring about 23'3 X 15'3' and a kolki on the ground floor of property bearing Municipal Number 567, Ishwar Katra Khari Baoli, Delhi. An agreement dated 1.7.1969 was executed on behalf of t...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sencma Sa

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]288ITR76(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In the course of survey operations, it was noticed that the respondent-assessed had not deducted tax at source on the amount of salaries paid by it to its expatriate employees working in India. The AO was of the view that the salaries paid outside India for services rendered in India were chargeable to tax and that since no deduction of tax at source in regard to the said salaries had been made, the assessed was liable to suffer a penalty in terms of Section 271C of the IT Act, 1961. Penalties for the financial years 1991-92 to 1998-99 were accordingly imposed upon the respondent-assessed, SENCMA, India. Similarly, penalties for the financial years 1989-90 to 1998-99 were imposed upon the respondent-assessed, SENCMA, France.2. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent-assessed appealed to the CIT(A), inter alia, contending that the assesseds were under a bona fide belief that salaries paid to expatriate employees outside India were not taxable and that no deduction...

Director of Income Tax Vs. Guru Nanak Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]292ITR589(Delhi); [2006]154TAXMAN543(Delhi)

ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has, while allowing the appeal filed by the assessed and granting registration to it in terms of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, clearly recorded a finding that the accumulated amount had been spent by the assessed for purchase of land for setting up a school. The Tribunal has, in this connection referred to the payment of earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh by a bank draft on 27-3-1997 and the purchase of the property in May 1997 in terms of a conveyance deed which was placed on record. The Tribunal has on that finding reversed the view taken by the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the accumulation was bona fide and the result of registration to the assessed unjustified. The Tribunal has in this regard, observed:'Even otherwise when it was pointed out that the Resolution dated 3-6-1997 was vague, the learned counsel placed another Resolution by way of clarification, clarifying the income of Rs. 34,98,691 was being...

Cit Vs. Sencma Sa, France

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)96

T.S. Thakur, J.In the course of survey operations, it was noticed that the respondent-assessed had not deducted tax at source on the amount of salaries paid by it to its expatriate employees working in India. The assessing officer was of the view that the salaries paid outside India for services rendered in India were chargeable to tax and that since no deduction of tax at source in regard to the said salaries had been made, the assessed was liable to suffer a penalty in terms of section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalties for the financial years 1991-92 to 1998-99 were accordingly imposed upon the respondent-assessed, SENCMA, India. Similarly, penalties for the financial years 1989-90 to 1998-99 were imposed upon the respondent-assessed, SENCMA, France.2. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent-assesseds appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, contending that the assesseds were under a bona fide belief that salaries paid to expatriate employees outside India w...

Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The first appellant, Delhi Paper Products, purchased various varieties of papers in jumbo rolls, repacked them as usable items such as tele-printer rolls, telegraphic rolls, adding machine rolls, fax rolls, typewriting paper, duplicating paper, tissue paper, toilet paper and napkin paper and sold them. In the impugned order, duty has been demanded (and penalty imposed), treating the appellant's activity as a manufacturing activity. The present appeal challenges the duty demand as well as penalty imposed.2. The contention of the leaned Counsel for the appellant is that the activity undertaken by the appellant involved no manufacture. It is being pointed out that a process or activity becomes manufacture only if identifiable new goods are brought into existence. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the various varieties of papers in question remained the same irrespective of packing (jumbo or consumer). That is to say, writing and printing paper remained writing and print...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P.)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD253(Delhi)

1. Both the appeals have been directed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 8.4.1997 for assessment year 1993-94 and dated 30.5.1997 for assessment year 1994-95. As the issues in both the appeals are common, a consolidated order is being passed.2. In both the appeals, the revenue has challenged the directions of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of assessee's Unit Nos. II and III. In assessment year 1993-94, the revenue has also challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under Section 80-I before set-off of the brought forward losses.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of printing magazines and books. Its Unit No. I which is a printing press was set off in 1972 in Sahibabad. This Unit is engaged in cover printing of magazines as also double cover printing for inside pages. It uses 14 offset machines.4. Unit No. II was established in the assessment year 1989-90 at...

Ex Recruit Shish Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT89; 2006(89)DRJ192; 2007(1)SLJ418(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The primary question which needs consideration in this writ petition is whether the Army Group Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'AGIS') authorities can refuse disability benefits under the AGIS particularly when the petitioner was invalidated out of service because of disability having arisen or aggravated during service. The petitioner, a Sepoy in the Indian Army, after being invalidated because of being placed in low medical category due to PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS, was granted disability pension as such disability was attributed to military service as per the report of the medical board constituted by the respondent Army. The medical board and PCDA Allahabad had also confirmed that such disease was attributed to military service. In this writ petition the main contest is between the petitioner and the respondents which deals with the AGIS of defense Personnel who by its orders dated 28th January 2002 denied the benefits of AGIS to the petitioner and ...