Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Pashupati Nath Jee Tours a ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)830

1. This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned CIT (A)-I, New Delhi, dt.28th June, 2004 in an appeal against order under Section 158BC of the IT Act (the Act).2. Whereas the Revenue challenges the deletion of addition made in the block assessment, in the cross-objection, the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The assessee is also challenging levy of surcharge as well as interest under Section 158BFA(1).3. We shall first deal with the cross-objection whereby the assessee challenges the validity of assessment and whether the same is barred by limitation. A search was conducted by issue of warrant in the name of the assessee dt. 16th Nov., 2000. The search was carried out on 17th Nov., 2000 and it was temporarily concluded on 18th Nov., 2000 after placing certain material under the prohibitory order. The search was continued and was finally concluded...

Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ72CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. In these stay applications, it is found that demand has been raised by the Department against the applicant for a sum of approximately Rs. 4.75 lakhs out of which the applicant has already pre-deposited Rs. 2 lakhs for the purpose of hearing the appeal before the lower authorities. It is has been argued by the learned Counsel that the Department has interpreted the activities of manufacturing and selling Kamdhenu CID Bars as "non-taxable service". It was stressed by the learned Counsel that there is no service element involved in the manufacturing and selling of such goods which, according to him, was a purely commercial activity of production of goods. According to him, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in his conclusion of treating the activities of manufacturing and selling as "service", though not taxable.3. Heard both sides and perused the records. As the applicant has already deposited Rs. 2 lakhs against the demand of approximately Rs. 475 lakhs as pre-deposit, no...

Sudhir Engineering Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)933

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi, for the asst. yr. 1999-2000.2. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of action taken under Section 147/148 of the IT Act. Brief facts of the case are that the original return of income was filed on 13th Dec. 1999. The same was processed under Section 143(l)(a) of the IT Act in a summary manner on 30th Nov., 2000 at the returned income of Rs. 1,33,732. Subsequently, on the basis of audit objection (paper book 38, 39), the AO came to know that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA on interest on Vikas cash certificate as the interest income earned on margin money deposited with bank had no direct nexus with the assessee and the same cannot be considered as interest received by the assessee from the industrial undertaking.3. Learned Authorised Representative has challenged the validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and subsequently issued notice under Se...

Ajit Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)301

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the CIT, Moradabad (in short 'CIT') passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dt. 31st March, 2005 pertaining to the asst. yrs. 2001-02 and 2002-03.2. In both the appeals, the assessee has assailed the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act on various grounds. Since the two appeals relate to a single assessee and involve common issues they have been heard together and we find it expedient to dispose of the same by a common order. We take up for consideration appeal for the asst. yr. 2001-02.3. In this appeal, the challenge to the order of the CIT under Section 263 is on the basis that the same is bad in law for it is beyond the jurisdiction of the CIT. The assessee has also challenged the order of the CIT on merits of the dispute. The brief background leading up to the present proceedings can be understood as follows. In this case, the assessee ...

Khaitan and Co. Vs. Cit (A)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi dated 19-12-2002 for the financial years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, in the matter of order passed under Section 201(l) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.2. Following common grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee in all the years under consideration: (1) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the order passed by the assessing officer raising demand under Section 201 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Referred 'the Act') and erred in confirming the levy of interest charged by the assessing officer under Section 201(l A) of the Act. (2) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order by ignoring the relevant material and evidences available on record and by relying on erroneous facts and irrelevant and extraneous consideration. (3) For the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that Khaitan Services Ltd. carr...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Shiv Nadar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the department, the only ground taken is as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 19,88,845 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) when it is clear that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income by not disclosing true and fair market value of perquisite enjoyed by him.2. The appeal arises this way. The assessee is an individual deriving income by way of salary as director of a company and income from other sources. In the return filed for the assessment year 1991-92, he declared income of Rs. 54,78,610. The assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 2,67,99,554. Several additions and disallowances were made in the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act before arriving at the total income and included therein was an addition of Rs. 24,27,402 under the head "Income from other sources" with the following narration : Benefits and perqui...

J.M. Overseas and ors. Vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Mangla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC191

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Vijay Kumar Mangla filed a suit against M/s. J.M. Overseas and two other concerns for recovery of Rs.6 lacs on account of defamation. It was alleged by the defendants that the plaitniff was involved in import-export business and amongst others was also carrying on the business through M/s. Mangla Overseas, 434, Katra Medgran, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The plaintiff (respondent in the present appeal) stated that he has been carrying on the business for a number of years and enjoyed good reputation in the market and the society. The appellants no.1 to 4 (defendants in the suit) in the present appeal have also been carrying on the business for a number of years which are proprietorship concerns and they, amongst themselves, hatched a conspiracy with the intention to harm his good fame and reputation and with the intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to him. They made slanderous allegations stating that he was dishonest. It was also stated by them that the respondent...

Shri Vasudev Vs. Smt. Rupkumari @ Banarso Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ398

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. As Co-owner of the property No. 21-J, Pandav Nagar, Near Mother Dairy, Patpar Ganj, New Delhi, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages for the use and occupation of the said premises against the defendants. This suit was contested by the defendants who took various preliminary objections as to maintainability of the suit. They denied the ownership of the plaintiff and in fact claimed that defendant No. 1 had purchased the said property and constructed one and a half-storeyed building over that property by incurring huge cost and no objection was raised at any time either by the plaintiff or defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte in the suit vide order dated 30.03.1989. By a detailed judgment and decree dated 29.08.2001, the trial court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and was entitled to decree for possession, however, it deferred the determination of quantum of damages under a separate enquir...

The Chairman Canteen and ors. Vs. Lt. Col. Raj Singh (Retd.) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT215

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. By way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking setting aside of the order dated 9th September, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1819/2005 whereby the tribunal allowed the petition of respondent No. 1 Lt. Col. Raj Singh(retd.) who had challenged the termination of his services as Manager, Non-CSD Canteen by the petitioners herein with effect from 18th August 2005. The tribunal while setting aside the termination order dated 30th July, 2005 directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal the petitioners have approached this Court for its reversal.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the tribunal by the respondent No. 1 are as under:(a) After his retirement from Ind...

Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ566; 2007(218)ELT331(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Sh. S.K. Mishra, Intelligence Officer in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi, is the complainant, who has filed complaint against six accused persons alleging that they have committed certain acts, which are offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The allegations, stated in nutshell, against these accused persons are that they, which include, accused No. 5 A.K. Saxena, who is a customs officer, have floated various firms in false and fictitious names and some of the firms are not even existing at the given address. Under these assumed names they have allegedly exported readymade garments and claimed duty drawback amount to the tune of Rs. 1,04,62,596/-. Names of these firms and the manner in which they allegedly drew these duty drawbacks illegally by showing fictitious exports is mentioned in para 72 of the complaint. It is alleged that A.K. Saxena verified the feasibility report of factory stuff of expo...