Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Indian Ex-servicemen Welfare Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR473

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties. The demand of Service Tax was confirmed on the ground that applicant are providing the services of security agency.2. The contention of the applicant is that it is not a commercial organization. Indian Ex-Service Men Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. was establish to rehabilitate the Ex-serviceman, to provide financial aid to the widows of the Ex-serviceman, etc. The contention is that as the applicant is not a commercial concern therefore, the demand of service tax is not sustainable.3. The contention of the Revenue is that they are employing the Ex-service man to provide security service and are charging the customers for the services. We find from the aims and objects of the Society that the same is for welfare of war widows and Ex-service men.In these circumstances, prima facie, the applicants had a strong case in their favour.4. Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penaltie...

Grover Suri and Associate Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for modification of the Stay Order No. 500/07-SM(BR) dated 11.7.07 directing to pre-deposit the entire amount of penalty and to report compliance on 17.9.07. Ld.Advocate submits that the Stay Order was passed ex-parte. He submits that the applicant is proprietorship firm and the proprietor was out of town when the notice was issued. Therefore, the applicant failed to appear at the time of hearing of the stay application.2. After hearing both sides, I find that that there is sufficient reason to recall the Stay Order dated 11.7.07. Hence, the Stay Order dated 11.7.07 passed ex-parte is recalled. The application is allowed....

Vastushilpi Projects and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR461

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 3,09,596/- and penalties.The demand is confirmed on the ground that applicants are providing the service of consultancy engineer. The contention of applicant is that they entered into agreements with the Nagar Palika for framing, servicing and implementation of water supply contracts. The contention is that for water supply they are providing consultancy service in respect of engineering on which they are paying service tax. The revenue is demanding service tax in respect of the activity such as survey the project area to identify suitable location. The contention is that this is the consultancy engineering service.2. In view of this, we find prima facie merit in the contention of the applicant. Therefore, pre-deposit of duty and penalty are waived for hearing the appeal. The stay petition is allowed....

Jit Singh and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)141CompCas209NULL

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated October 1, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissing the Miscellaneous Application No. 188 of 2003 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated March 27, 1996. The said application was made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 herein, namely, Mr. Jit Singh and Mr. Jaspal Singh were defendants Nos. 7 and 4 respectively in the suit in question whereas appellant No. 3, Mr. Baldev Singh (son of appellant No. 1 Mr.Jit Singh) was allowed to be impleaded by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated September 25, 2006 in C. M. No.13433-CII of 2003 in Civil Revision No. 5233 of 2003.The relevant facts are stated hereunder. The first respondent-Central Bank of India had filed Suit No. 182 of 1993 for the recovery of Rs. 12 lakhs and odd against the defendants including appel...

ito Vs. Fluor Daniel India (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals, pertaining to one assessee, were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Departmental Representative and the learned Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed. It may be mentioned here that the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the assessing officer in respect of both the appeals, while the learned Counsel for the assessee argued his case at length.2. The revenue has taken two grounds to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of '(i) Rs. 2,75,10,589 on account of royalty payment for specific software by admitting fresh evidence in violation of rule 46-A, and (ii) Rs. 52,10,200 on account of liabilities continued for the last three years.2.1 In connection with royalty payments, it is mentioned in the assessment order under the head "Repairs and maintenance" that certain expenditure aggregating to Rs. 5,22,82,485 wa...

income Tax Officer Vs. Ravi Khurana

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)561

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dt. 31st July, 2003 of CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1997-98. The only dispute raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment for asst.yr. 1997-98 had been made by the AO ex parte under Section 144 on dt.8th Feb.,2000. The assessee in the return of income had shown gross loss of Rs. 1,59,947 from business after claiming expenses for Rs. 67,780. In the absence of bills and vouchers as the books were not produced before him, the AO disallowed the gross loss and the expenses and determined the total income at Rs. 2,63,685. The assessee had also shown loans taken at Rs. 3,62,300 which were treated by AO as income under Section 68 in the absence of any details and evidence. The total income was thus determined at Rs. 6,25,925. Though the assessee had dis...

Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-9-2005. Although the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing ground Nos. 1, 4 and 7 were not pressed and, therefore, the Sctme stand dismissed as not pressed. The only grounds remains for adjudication are given as under: 2. That the Hon'ble Coramissioner (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 16,25,000 made by the learned assessing officer treating the amount of unsecured loans received from depositors as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,255,000 made by the learned assessing officer towards unsecured loans received from the following depositors as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to adjudicate on the issue of levying of interest...

Alcatel India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)881

1. The cross-appeals for asst. yr. 2000-01 and other two appeals of the assessee for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,49,39,41,578, made by the AO on account of bad debt claimed in respect of the debt due from M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. (KTL).In this connection, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee claimed bad debt of about Rs. 249.94 crores by debiting this amount to P&L a/c. It was submitted that a sum of about Rs. 249.35 crores was receivable from the KTL in respect of supply of equipments, sale of cellular exchange equipments and related services on a deferred credit basis. The KTL defaulted on the payment schedule right from the beginning. Aft...

Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ331; LC2007(3)389; 2007(35)PTC868(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an order of injunction issued against the defendant has been made absolute and the defendant's application under Order 39 Rule 4 dismissed. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff respondent company was established by Dr. K. Anji Reddy in the year 1984 to deliver innovative pharmaceutical health care solutions. With the passage of time, the company is alleged to have emerged as India's second largest pharmaceutical company with the distinction of being the only Pharma company from the Asia Pacific region to be listed in the New York Stock Exchange. It is also alleged to have set up Dr. Reddy's Research Foundation to supplement the plaintiff's research and development capabilities in association with world renowned organizations in that field. It claims to have a turn over running into millions of dollars with world class expertise in development and...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. R.S. Jindal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ90

Sanjiv Khanna, J.CM. No. 1699/2003:1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 216 days in filing of this intra court appeal against the judgment dated 17th December, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2300/1997. This application was allowed vide Order dated 9th November, 2005. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-Mr. R.S. Jindal by its order dated 3rd November, 2003 with the direction that this application would be heard afresh along with the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short).2. The Respondent has relied upon several judgments. We do not propose to separately refer to these judgments as the principles of Law are well settled. Delay in filing of an appeal has to be satisfactorily or reasonably explained. However, it is not each days delay that is to be put under scanner nor is it a fault finding exercise by the Courts. Unless...