Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Cce Vs. Dhanraj Organics Ltd. and Shri
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC350
1. The revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order is no farthe Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for duty of Rs. 1,12,115/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand One Hundred Fifteen only) and reduced penalty from Rs. 1,56,010/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand and Ten only) to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) upon respondent No. 1 and also set aside penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) imposed upon Shri Abhay Agrawal, respondent No. 2, Director of the Company. The respondent No. 1 filed the Cross Objection against the impugned order, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty of Rs. 8340.00, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 6000.00 and penalty of Rs. 5000.00.2. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears from record that on 27.12.06 the respondents requested for adjournment as the learned advocate was unwell and adjourned to 10.1.07. But, on 10.1.07 none ...
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)1120
1. This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of CIT(Appeals)-VI, New Delhi, passed on 17.02.2003. The corresponding order of assessment was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1), New Delhi (hereinafter called the Assessing Officer), on 28.03.2002 under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue has taken up two grounds of appeal to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in -(i) allowing deduction of depreciation amounting to Rs. 21,24,315/-. on cost of land component of the building, and (ii) deleting addition of Rs. 1,92,878/- made on account of interest earned during pre-operative period.2. In regard to ground No. 1, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee acquired a part of commercial complex along with undivided interest in land in the relevant previous year. However, in the schedule of fixed assets, the whole of the cost was shown under the h...
income Tax Officer Vs. Kanha Vanaspati Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)816
1. These are cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the separate orders of the learned CIT(A) dt. 5th Jan., 2004 and 15th Dec, 2003 for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Sections 250/201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to charge interest under Section 201(1A) from the date of deductibility of tax till the payment by the deductee as Explanation to Section 191 inserted by Finance Act,. 2003 w.e.f. 1st June, 2003 is not applicable to the default committed by the assessee for earlier years. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the discounting charges amounting to Rs. 45,96,349 as interest within the definition of Section 2(28A) and accordingly in at...
Master Nitish Arora Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT21; 2007(94)DRJ407
Gita Mittal, J1. By this order, I propose to dispose of is No. 1002/2001 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short 'CPC' filed by Smt. Santosh Soni, respondent No. 1 and is No. 8432/2001 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff. is Nos. 1002/2001 and 8432/20012. It is necessary to notice some essential dates and facts in order to appreciate the issues which are raised. Late Shri Tara Chand was the owner of House No. 2023-A, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-34. His wife had pre-deceased him. Late Shri Tara Chand was blessed with one son Shri Harish Chander Arora and one daughter Smt. Santosh Soni-respondent No. 2. Shri Tara Chand expired at Delhi on 4th June, 1998 leaving behind these persons as his class one heirs.3. These applications have been necessitated as Smt. Santosh Soni claimed to be the legatee in the last Will and Testament of late Shri Tara Chand dated 30th June, 1995 in her favor. She contends that by a public notice issu...
Sh Ajay Garg, Proprietor of Rattan Kod Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 137(2007)DLT360
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father late Shri Rattan Lal was the holder of the KOD license No. 3082/87 and was running his kerosene oil depot under the name and style of M/s Rattan KOD at JB-3/64, Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi. He further submitted that the said Shri Rattan Lal had been running the said depot since 1987 and no complaints were received from any party with regard to the conduct of the business during his life time. The said Shri Rattan Lal passed away on 29.01.2004 Three months thereafter some complaints surfaced with regard to the alleged irregularities committed during the month of June, 2003, that is, ten months prior to the date of the complaint and seven months prior to the death of the said Shri Rattan Lal.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that on the death of Late Shri Rattan Lal, the KOD license was substituted, though after some litigation, in favor of the present petitioner ...
Whale Stationery Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ357(Del); 137(2007)DLT516; 2007(94)DRJ164; (2007)146PLR28; [2007]75SCL351(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by two orders dated 15.01.2003 and 17.01.2003 whereby they have been blacklisted for a period of 10 years. The orders dated 15.01.2003 and 17.01.2003 are purportedly based on an earlier order dated 30.12.2002 whereby the government had imposed a ban on commercial business/dealings by all Departments/Ministries/Offices of the Government of India with Delhi Paper Products Company Private Limited and its 'subsidiaries' for 10 years with effect from 30.12.2002. The impugned orders have been passed on the basis that one of the directors of Delhi Paper Products Company Private Limited was also working as a director in the petitioner companies and, thereforee, the petitioner companies were subsidiaries of Delhi Paper Products Company Private Limited and consequently they would also be covered by the ban imposed by the order dated 30.12.2002.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, firstly, contended that the peti...
Gurdev Singh Kaler Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT279
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner, who was declared a proclaimed offender in case of FIR Nos. 485 and 486 of 2002 P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi under Sections 420/468 and 471 of IPC and Section 12 of Passport Act has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the aforesaid two FIRs and also made a prayer for stay on his arrest and stay on further proceedings. It is claimed by the Petitioner that he was a permanent resident of Bini Daraga Albay, in Philippines. He had been staying there since 1984 and he was an Indian citizen holding Indian Passport issued on 3rd October, 2002 by Indian Embassy Manila, Philippines valid up to 2nd October, 2012. He has been wrongly charge-sheeted in the above two FIRs.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that one Boota Singh S/o Ram Singh and Sukhdeep Singh S/o Sohan Singh holding Indian Passports approached for immigration clearance for departure to Philippines by flight No. SQ 407. On scrutiny of...
Shri Ashok Kumar Dhar Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 137(2007)DLT551
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for disposal.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted an industrial plot under the 1982 policy for allotment of plots in Functional Industrial Estate for Electronics at Okhla, New Delhi. Although the plot was allotted to the petitioner, possession could not be handed over inasmuch as it was illegally occupied by some third parties. Subsequently, another plot was allotted to the petitioner. Unfortunately, the possession of this plot was also not handed over to the petitioner nor was any conveyance deed executed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner and his relatives have other industrial plots.4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 1982 Scheme did not contain any condition that a person would not be allotted a plot if he or his relatives had alternative industrial plots. Reliance was placed on two decisions of this Court in Civil Wri...
S.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 137(2007)DLT541; 2007(94)DRJ477
P.K. Bhasin, J:1. By way of these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners of the two writ petitions have challenged the order dated 22-02-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2294/2002 filed by one Mrs. Mukesh Lata Gautam, who is respondent No. 5 in the writ petition of Shri S.C. Sharma and is Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition of the Union Public Service Commission, whereby the selection and appointment of the petitioner Shri S.C. Sharma to the post of Senior Research Officer(Research Division) in the Central Institute of Research Training and Employment(CIRTES), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, has been quashed. Since both these petitions seek to challenge the same order of the tribunal and the points involved therein for the determination of this Court are also common and were heard together we propose to decide the same by this c...
Jsel Securities Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ31CESTATNew(Delhi)
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 7,45,634/- and penalties. The contention of the applicant is that they are registered with the Service tax authorities as stock broker and they are paying Service tax on the brokerage, delivery brokerage received from the sub-broker. The contention is that the Revenue wants to add the turnover tax to the assessable value as brokerage for charging the Service tax. The contention is that turnover charges payable to recognized stock exchange whereas applicant is registered and it has no connection with the brokerage or delivery brokerage received from the sub-broker. Under the Security Contracts Regulation Act, 1956 the stock broker is registered with the recognized stock exchange and the stock broker is liable to pay certain amounts as fee.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the applicant is receiving this amount from their customers, therefore, it is brokerage or delivery brokerage, therefore, the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »