Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Uniworth Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 72,85,010/- in respect of machines mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice and a further duty demand of Rs. 30,12,355/- in respect of machines mentioned in Annexure 'B' to the show cause notice and imposing penalty of like amounts totaling Rs. 1,02,97,365/-, on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two contentions before us, namely that the goods in respect of which the duty demand is confirmed under the impugned order are in the control of the Customs authorities and, therefore, no such deposit of duty was required to be made under Section 129E of the Customs Act for the hearing of the present appeal and further that the explanation to Section 114A, which was inserted along with the provisos in Section 114A, by virtue of Section 81 of the Finance Act, 2000, did not apply and, therefore, penalty could not ...

Asian Hotels Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD247(Delhi)

1. Out of these 7 appeals, six appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer in relation to assessment orders for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Besides there is an appeal filed by assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1991-92. The revenue's appeal in relation thereto has already been decided by the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "C" dated 25-6-2001 in ITA No.167(Delhi)/95. As certain common issues and facts are involved in these appeals, the same have been argued together by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned D.R. We are deciding these appeals together for convenience.2. The main dispute in these appeals relates to certain expenditure incurred by the assessee over the years under consideration and subsequent years in relation to the Project, "Renovation and Refurbishment Programme". For assessment year 1991-92 the dispute is limited to the assessee's c...

Senior Accounts Officer (O and M), Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)584

1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the order dt. 25th Feb., 2004 of GIT(A), Karnal, relating to the financial year 2001-02. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the action of the Revenue authorities in creating a demand for short deduction of tax at source under Section 201(1) of the IT Act and charging interest on tax so short deducted in terms of Section 2O1(1A) of the Act.2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid appeal are as follows: The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It came into existence on 17th March, 1997 with the object of generation of power in the State of Haryana. The appellant had two thermal plants-one at Faridabad and another at Panipat. The Panipat thermal plant entered into an agreement with M/s BHEL for designing, engineering, manufacturing, supply, erection, testing and commissioning for retrofit of ESPs. A copy of the agreement between the appellant and the BHEL is placed at pp. 1 to 10 of the appellant's pap...

Indian Farmers Fertiliser Coop. Vs. Jcit, Range 23

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)105ITD33(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee involves 14 grounds but they all relate to a single issue and the gist thereof is that the order passed by the AO on 28-2-2003 purporting to be an order passed Under Section 147/143(3)/154 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law, without jurisdiction, time-barred and at any rate the issue sought to be rectified is a debatable one not amenable to rectification Under Section 154.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal is as follows. An assessment was first made for the assessment year 1994-95 on 29-11-1996 Under Section 143(3) of the Act. Later, the assessment was reopened Under Section 147 and the reassessment was completed on 28-3-2002. In this reassessment, the AO observed that the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee had been allowed deduction Under Section80-I in respect of the Anola unit on dividend income. However, it appears from the reassessment order that the assessee had clarified before the AO in the course of the reassessment pro...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geetha Mohan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Delhi)551

The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 660/Mad/2004, dated 2-2-2005.The revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 2001-02.The case of the appellant is that the assessee/respondent herein, availed the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and claimed exemption of the amount of compensation received, both under section 10(10C) and section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act.The assessing officer granted exemption as envisaged under section 10(10C) of the Act, but denied the exemption under section 89(l) of the Act, on the ground that once exemption under section 10(10C) is allowed, section 89(1) cannot be invoked. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals), taking the view that it is possible to interpret the sections both ways, and where there is an ambiguity, the benefit should be given to the taxpayer, allowed the appeal, which was confirmed by the Tribunal, on appeal by the revenue.Aggrieved by...

Bowrings Fine Art Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Archaeological Survey of I ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ832

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner had auctioned a number of paintings on 20th November, 2002. It has not been controverter that the Catalogue had been forwarded to the Archaeological Survey of India prior to the auction. Two paintings titled/named 'Reconciled' by Frederico Andreotti and 'The Kill' by George D. Rowlandson, were purchased by Messrs Tony Haynes of England and thus were to be exported. Whilst in the process of shipment, the Customs Authorities had detained these paintings as they appeared to be antiquities i.e. more that 100 years old and thereforee, it was impermissible for them to be exported by virtue of the sundry provisions of The Antiquities And Art Treasures Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Antiquities Act').2. Section 3 of the Antiquities Act prohibits the export of `antiquities', which include paintings, as per the definitions in Section 2 of the Act. Section 4 makes the Customs Act, 1962, applicable to instances where a...

Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare Society Through Its President and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ406

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Difference of opinion on one of the points that fell for consideration in a batch of cases heard by a bench comprising Swatanter Kumar and Madan B. Lokur, JJ has necessitated this reference to a third judge. The precise issue on which the two Hon'ble Judges have differed and the facts giving rise to the controversy have been stated in the orders proposed by their lordships. It is, thereforee, unnecessary to recount the same over again except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so for a correct appreciation of the submissions made at the bar.2. A large extent of land situate in revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi also called Rangpuri, New Delhi was notified for acquisition by the appropriate Government for the public purpose of construction of staff quarters for the employees serving in the Government of NCT of Delhi. The preliminary notification issued under Section 4 on 1st June, 1995 also purported to invoke the powers vested in the Government under S...

Modern Overseas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT218(Del)

J.M. Malik, J.1. At this stage, the only legal jangle between the parties is as to who would pay the demurrage charges? The petitioner has prayed that the goods in question should be released without saddling any kind of liability upon it. The indisputable facts of the above said case are these:The petitioner is engaged in manufacture, export and import of various items of building hardware. Petitioner's goods were illegally withheld and detained by the Customs officer for unusually long time on the ground that the same were undervalued. The petitioner represented before the Dy. Commissioner of Customs vide representation dated 21-7-2004 and 11-8-2004. The Customs Department also alleged that petitioner had misled the department as to nature and description of the goods. The goods of the petitioner were confiscated and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.2. The Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 17-8-2004 asked for payment of differential duty and penalty besides offering...

T.R. Balasubramanian Vs. Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT763

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellant, Mr. T.R. Balasubramanian, has filed the present second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order dated 6th October, 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal Delhi in RCA No. 528/2000. By the impugned order and judgment dated 6th October, 2001, learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi has upheld the eviction order passed against the appellant under Section 14(1)(i) of the Act and aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. However, the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal set aside the eviction order passed against the appellant under Section 22 of the Act. The present appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 9th January, 2002.2. On the basis of the arguments raised and the written submissions filed by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to frame the following substantial questions of law that are required to be decided in the presen...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Varun Enterprises and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT473

J.M. Malik, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the DDA against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate dated 28th January, 1995. The indictment against the respondent/accused is that it was using premises number E-564, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi for running a show room on the ground floor under the name and style of M/s Varun Enterprises, a partnership firm, in flagrant disregard of provision of master plan, which came into force on 1st September, 1962. According to the master plan, the said property could be used only for residential purposes. Mr. K.P. Jawa, Junior Engineer, DDA visited the spot and found that respondent firm was functioning on the ground floor over an area of about 400 sq. feet vide his report Ex.PW3/A. Consequently, the appellant launched a prosecution under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of Delhi Development Act, 1957 against the respondent.2. In his cross-examination, Mr. K.P. Jawa stated that he was aware that the record of the building...