Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Sumac International (P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)647

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners have been imp leaded as accused in a complaint filed by Shri A.K. Fotedar, IAC, IT Department, Government of India under Section 276B of the IT Act.2. Petitioner of Criminal Misc. Case No. 3248 of 2002 is accused No. 1. Petitioners of Criminal Misc. Case No. 307 of 2003 are the directors of the first accused, i.e. the company.3. Gravemen of the allegations in the complaint are that pertaining to the asst. yr. 1983-84, the company and its directors violated the provisions of the IT Act pertaining to deduction of tax at source, in that, Rs. 2,25,690 which had to be deducted as tax at source under Section 195(1) of the IT Act was not fully deposited in the treasury and only Rs. 86,340 was deposited with the treasury.4. According to the petitioners the tax at source had to be deducted and deposited only at the time of making payment and not when money was credited to the account of the person to whom it was to be paid and that in respect of the transacti...

Cimmco Birla Ltd. Vs. Anil Sethi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly respondent deposited an amount of 2,000 with the appellant for issuing 20 debentures in the year 1991. Appellant issued 20 debentures vide folio No. CL 35961 Certificate No. 106948 and Distinctive Nos. 714751 to 714770 for Rs. 100 @ 12.5% since 1991. The debenture was partly redeemed during October, 1998 and December 1999. However the last redemption along with interest was not paid by the appellant. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 31st May, 203, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the direction to the appellant to pay the redemption value along with agreed rate of interest from effective date to the date of redemption and interest for the delayed period @ 9% w.e.f. fixed date of redemption till realization along with cost of Rs. 1,000 . Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The solitary plea taken by the appellant in its defence before the Dis...

ito Vs. Smt. Kavita Khurana

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8-1-2004 for the assessment year 1999-2000, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of giving so many opportunities, the Bench, therefore, decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and considering the material placed on record.2. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and found that addition was made by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Act. In respect of loan liability shown by the assessee in her balance sheet, the assessing officer observed that in some of the cases, the assessee had not filed confirmation or there is some difference in the amount shown by these persons in their respective statement of account. The assessing officer, therefore, invoked Section 59(1) of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 5,2...

Bansal Impex Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)906

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT, Moradabad dt. 31st March, 2005 for asst. yr. 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT) has erred both in relation with the facts and features of the case of the appellant/assessee firm as well as in relation with the law (read with the relative ruling pronounced by the competent Courts) while initiating impugned proceedings under Section 263 vide notice dt. 27th Jan., 2005 and while issuing order under Section 263 dt. 31st March, 2005 wherein: (1) Deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB have been directed to be restricted by provisions of Sub-section (9A) of Section 80-IA which was non-existent in law, whereby desiring deduction under Section 80HHC to be computed/allowed with reference to resultant 'Income from business' after reducing deduction under Section 80-IB. that too without discussing and/or counteri...

income Tax Officer Vs. Wimco Seedlings Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)986

1. In this appeal by the Department, the only ground taken is that the CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 35,51,000 imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.2. The assessee is a company. In respect of the assessment year under appeal, it filed return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 51,87,733 on 28th Nov., 1997. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on a loss of Rs. 49,73,323, which was revised under Section 154 to Rs. 51,60,935. Thereafter the return was picked up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) were issued. Ultimately, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dt. 29th Feb., 2000.In this order, the AO computed the total income of the assessee in accordance with the normal provisions of the IT Act, which resulted in a positive income of Rs. 41,50,102 and after adjusting the losses brought forward from the earlier years, the total income was computed at nil and the net loss to be carried over to the ...

Crimpson Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR466

1. Applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 42,574/- and penalties. The demand was confirmed on the ground that applicants were providing the service of maintenance or repair. Contention of applicant is that they are undertaking the job work only and the entry made in the books of account is also showing receipt of job work charges. The contention is that there is no evidence on record to show that they had provided any maintenance or repair service.2. We find that even in show cause notice, it is only mentioned that the assessee has clarified that they had also undertaking the work of maintenance of machines. There is no such evidence on record. In these circumstances, as in the books of accounts, it is mentioned that the amount received in respect of job work. We find, prima facie, applicant had a strong case in his favour.3. Therefore, the pre-deposit of service tax is waived. Stay petition is allowed....

Cce Vs. Dwivedi Travels and Suman Travels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The issue involved in this case is the tax liability on the respondents on "Tour Operator's Service". The respondent had given Bus on hire to M/s. Kodak India Ltd. for the purpose of transporting their employees from Gwalior to Malanpur. I find that the issue is already settled by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents in the cases mentioned as follows:CCE, Vadodara-II v. Gandhi Travels 2007 (79) RLT 774 (CESTAT-Ahmd.)Prasanna Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and ST, Pune 2007 (8) STR 34 (Tribunal-Mumbai)Shree Khurana Travels Raj Tours and Travels v. CCE, Pune 2007-TIOL-1522-CESTAT-MUM.3. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected....

inani Marbles and Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ398CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.2. The issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the Revenue can issue show cause notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the recovery of the service tax not paid during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 in respect of the goods transport service.3. It reveals that the Commissioner passed the impugned order following the observation of earlier Revision Order No. 54-150/JP-II/2005/ST dated 26.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Ld.Advocate submits that the appeals filed by the assesses against the Revision Order dated 26.10.2005 were allowed with consequential relief by the Tribunal's Final Order No. 126-221/07-ST dated 18.10.2007. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: 2. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the revenue could issue show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the r...

Bisalpur Kisan Sahkari Chini Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(124)ECC190

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Heading No. 1701 and 1703 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been alleged that on perusal of the Annual Report for the year 2001-2002, it is noticed that during the financial year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, the appellants sold scraps. The appellants explained by letter dated 16.3.2004 that during the said period they cleared scrap of M.S. used ball bearing/used choke/used Drums/C.I. powder/Nickel Screen etc. but Modvat credit was availed on Nickel Screen and bearing only. It has been alleged that the appellants contravened the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and, therefore, it was proposed to demand the duty, penalty alongwith interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest, which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Ld. Counsel on ...

Punjab Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC183

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Ingots falling under sub-heading 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise Officers visited the factory on 5.12.03 and verified the stock of finished goods and ascertained shortage of finished goods involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 52,596/- which was debited by the appellant vide PLA entry No. 22 dt.6.12.03. A SCN was issued proposing a demand of duty and to appointment the amount as debited by them and also imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 02. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 52,596/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 02 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 44.3. Ld. Advocate fairly submits that they have not disputed the demand of duty which have already been deposited before issuance of SCN. He submits that in this case penalty is to be set aside as the duty deposit...