Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Ongc Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals field by the assessees against the respective orders of CIT (Appeals)-I, Dehradun passed in Appeal No.259/DDN/2000-01, dated 21-5-2004 and Appeal No. 343/ DDN/2001-02, dated 24-5-2004, involving the identical issue on identical facts, were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Dehradun has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the appellants contention that the receipts of the non-resident were taxable under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) and no as fees for technical services under Section 44D, read with Section 115 of the Act." 3. Since the facts involved in both these appeals are identical except variation in amounts, we are only stating the brief facts from the appeal of the assessees relating to assessment year 1998-99. The assessee filed a return of income in this case on 23-11-1998 declaring a total income of Rs. 86,610. ...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Doon Valley Motors

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 27-3-2004 for the assessment year 2001-02, in the matter of order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of the revenue are as under: 1. That the learned CIT (Appeals)-I, Dehradun has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), not disputed by the assessee at any stage before the assessing officer. 2. That learned CIT (Appeals)-I, Dehradun has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made an expenses by the Asses Eing Officer." 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners. It is engaged in the business of sales and service of Hero Honda Motorcycles, swaraj mazda buses, generator sets for the last fifteen years. In addition to the partners themselves, the other family members...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Rahul Chaudhaery

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These six appeals filed by the revenue against consolidated order dated 25-7-2003 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXV, New " Delhi, for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02, involve common issue and the same therefore, are being disposed of by this single-consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. The assessees are co-owners of the lease-hold rights in respect of a building in plot No. 2, Block-K, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ("the property") having acquired the lease-hold rights from the Government. The assessees had sublet the property to one M/s. Rhone Poulence (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RPIL'). The sub-tenant, RPIL was paying a rent of Rs. 2.66 lakhs per annum, which was the agreed rent between the assessees and the sub-tenant. The property was capable of fetching much greater rent than what was being paid by the sub-tenant. The assessees could not get back possession from the sub-tenant as the tenancy was subject to t...

Prabhat Uppal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ501

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Crl. A. No. 477/2000 seeks to challenge the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 73/97 whereby the learned judge vide judgment and order dated 18.07.2000 has held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and further vide his order dated 21.07.2000, sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment are as follows:Prosecution case, as set up in charge-sheet, is that on 17-8-88, on receipt of information that a woman, who slept at night, was found dead in a house No. 9-A/17, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, DD No. 16-A was recorded. Thereupon, SI Ashok Kumar along with Ct. Jagdish reached the place of incident. Insp.. Rajinder Prasad Gautam also reached there in his official vehicle. They found the dead-body of Shama Upp...

Prakash Chand and Dr. Kishan Gopal Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, T ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT91

J.M. Malik, J. 1. Both the petitioners have called into question the selection of Dr. Muttayya Koganuramath, respondent No. 2, who was selected to the post of Librarian in the Jawahar Lal Nehru University on 11.11.2004 The genesis and sequence of this case is as follows. The post of Librarian was lying vacant since 2001. During the first attempt, Dr. Krishan Gopal, petitioner No. 2 was not called for the interview. As a matter of fact, Dr. R.K. Sharma was selected in absentia. Dr. Krishan Gopal filed a writ petition, which was disposed of on 07.08.2002, wherein the counsel for the University made a statement that the selection of respondent No. 2 in that case would not be given effect to. Consequently the same stood quashed as the counsel for the University stated that the University would constitute a new selection committee and the University would not consider any person in absentia. It was specifically stated that the case of Dr. Krishan Gopal would also be considered in the select...

M.S.J. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ354

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. DDA's objections to the award dated 25.1.1992 published by Shri S. Nagarajan are being decided by the present order.2. DDA had to construct flats at Motia Khan, Delhi. The structures had to be rested on a pile foundation. Petitioner was awarded the work of providing RCC bored cast-in-situ pile foundations with pile caps and grid beams in block 1 and 2. Scope of work was listed in the agreement No. 6/EE/CPD-6/84-85.3. 754 piles had to be casted. Contract was awarded on 27.12.1984. Date of commencement of the work was 10 days after the letter of award. Thus, date of commencement was 6.1.1985. The work had to be completed within 5 months. Thus, nearly 150 piles had to be casted per month. Work continued for 3 years. Contract was ultimately revoked by DDA on 14.7.1988. It appears that about 300 odd piles were casted.4. Contract contained an arbitration clause. Contractor had a claim on account of:(a) Towards hire charges for plant and machinery during extended perio...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bacardi Martini India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)250; 2006(91)DRJ413; [2007]288ITR585(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.10.2005 upholding the order of CIT in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,33,02,242/- imposed on the assessed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short 'the Act')The brief facts for our consideration are -2. The assessed is engaged in the business of production and sale of Indian made foreign liquor. The assessed filed its return for the assessment year 2001-2002 on 30.10.2001 declaring a loss of Rs. 14,56,07,202/-. It filed a revised return on 28.3.03 declaring a reduced loss of Rs. 13,13,57,690/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed by the AO at a reduced loss of Rs. 11,38,27,726/- vide his order dated 3.3.2004. AO also initiated proceedings for concealment of income and the assessed was held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.9.2004 and a...

K. Raj Arora Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ485

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Writ Petition (C) No. 154 of 2000 by Shri K. Raj Arora and Writ Petition (C) No. 1302 of 2000 by Shri C.D. Gupta involve similar questions of law and have been heard together. Both petitioners, erstwhile employees of the Respondent No. 1 Bank, were found guilty of certain charges of misconduct leading to their dismissal from service. They challenge their dismissal essentially on grounds of procedure and in the alternative pray for any lesser punishment. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the orders of dismissal. The detailed reasons are set out below.Facts of Shri Arora's case2. To begin with, the facts of each of the two cases may be noticed. Shri K. Raj Arora commenced his employment with Respondent No. 1 State Bank of India as a clerk on 24.12.1960. Between October 1980 to November 1982 he was the Branch Manager at the Sarai Khawaja branch, Faridabad. It is stated that on receipt of a special inspection report dated 1.5.1986 and a preliminary investiga...

Shaw Wallace Breweries Ltd. Vs. Him Neel Breweries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC396; [2007]135CompCas57(Delhi); 133(2006)DLT153; 2006(91)DRJ584

Vikramajit Sen, J. IA No. 3200/2004 1. This application seeks the recall of the following Order dated 18.3.2004 passed by my learned Brother Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.:I have seen the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner in the present case. I have also gone through the noting of the security personnel posted at the address of the respondent which is recorded in the summons and also have perused the report of the Process Server. On going through the same although I am satisfied that service, as required under the law, is effected on the defendant yet in the interest of justice, I direct that fresh service be effected on the respondent by way of affixation. The Process Server is directed to have the service effected once again by way of affixation on the boundary wall of the factory of the respondent. This process shall be completed within two weeks from today. Renotify on 12th April, 2004 The interim order passed on 19th February, 2004 shall continue to operate until the next da...

Delhi Public School Society Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT5

1. The appellant is an educational institution with an objective to establish progressive schemes to impart liberal and sound education.The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax passed on 30-3-06 holding that they had provided franchise services for running schools. The Id. Commissioner had gone into the definition of franchise as given under Clause (47) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The four "limbs" on which this definition rests reads thus: (i) Franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertake any process identified with Franchiser, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol as the case may be, is involved; (ii) The Franchiser provides concepts of business operation to Franchisee, including know-how, method of operation, managerial expertise, marketing technique or training and standards of quality control except passing on the ownership of all k...