Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. All India Films Corpn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)55; [2008]297ITR358(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. A question that frequently engages the attention of our tax courts has been referred for our opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (Tribunal1) under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the Assessment Years 1975-76 and 1980-81 arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 20th April, 1985 in ITA No. 5404and 5405 (Del)/1983.While ITR No. 113 of 1986 is a reference at the instance of the Revenue, ITR Nos. 114 and 115 of 1986 are references at the instance of the assessed. That question is whether a sum received by an assessed should be treated for the purposes of the Act as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The large volume of precedents of the High Courts and the Supreme Court on the point underscores the difficulty in easily answering what appears to be a fairly simple question.The precedent volume grows larger with this judgment.2. First, the facts. The assessed took on lease two cinema halls, 'Capital' and...

M.C.D. thro' Its Deputy Commissioner, Slum and JJ Wing Vs. Satish Kuma ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ742Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner/management has assailed an award dated December 8, 2006 passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner holding inter alias that the termination of the respondent workman was illegal and unjustified. With these observations, the respondent workman was directed to be reinstated in service along with 40% back wages.2. The main ground taken in the writ petition to assail the impugned award is that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that there was no justification in the act of the workman in denying fresh appointment offered to him. It is held in the impugned award that the offer made by the petitioner to the respondent workman was subject to the condition that he would not move the Court for any benefits regarding his previous service. It has been rightly observed by the Labour Court that on the face of it the aforesaid condition was illegal and could not be imposed on any person to forego his legal right to move the Court. There is no illegality in t...

Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ113(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.IA No. 11474/2006 in AA No. 324/2005 29.10.2007 1. This is an application by the respondent seeking condensation of delay in filing the reply.For the reasons stated in the application it is allowed and the delay in filing the reply is condoned and the reply is taken on record.IA No. 8000/2006This is an application by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 17.1.2005 and not to consider the reply filed by the respondent.The delay in filing the reply has already been condoned and the reply filed by the respondent has been taken on record.Consequently, the application has become infructuous.Dismissed as infructuous.AA No. 324/20052. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the arbitrator. The petitioner has contended that he is a MCD contractor and pursuant to a short notice inviting tender dated 8.5.2000 for desalting the open nalla from Shahpur Culvert to Subhash Nagar, New Delhi he had applied and filed a...

Gajraj JaIn Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT93

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Gajraj Jain is aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning him to face trial as an accused for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a complaint filed by Sh. K.K. Gupta as karta of K.K. Gupta & Sons (HUF).2. The complainant alleged that for the reasons stated in the complaint offence under Section 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were made out. However, as noted above, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has summoned the accused persons to face trial only in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC.3. In his complaint, K.K. Gupta has stated that Hilton Rubbers Ltd. was a Private Ltd. Company and had invited deposits from public for a period of one year. That as karta of the HUF he had submitted the necessary application for making the deposit enclosing therewith Cheque No. 299424 dated 24.12.1997 in sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The company encash the cheque and accepte...

Pik-up Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Labour Commissioner a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR277]; (2008)ILLJ757Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has impugned an ex parte award dated July 19,2004 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 113/2002 mainly on the ground that the petitioner herein is not the management referred to in the order of reference passed by the appropriate authority inasmuch as while the petitioner herein is PIK-UP Ignition Switches Pvt. Ltd., the impugned ex parte award has been passed against the management of Pickup Industries Pvt. Ltd., though the address of both the aforesaid entities furnished by the respondent workman is the same.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know about the impugned award only when recovery proceedings were initiated against it. It is further stated that Pickup Industries Pvt. Ltd. against whom the award has been passed was never running its office from the aforementioned address and that the petitioner not being a party to the award, the same cannot be sought to be implemented against it.3. It may be noted that it was ...

Vijai Kumar Sawhney Vs. Inder Dev Sawhney and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ494

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The issue involved in this application is with regard to the question of stamp duty on the compromise decree dated 09.01.2006. This suit was filed for partition of joint property and pursuant to a compromise and/or settlement between the parties, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 being IA. No. 254/2006 was filed in respect of the suit property bearing No. C-153 defense Colony, New Delhi? 110024. The parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 18.01.2005 wherein it was specifically stated that as per the desire of Mr Vijai Kumar Sawhney and his son to sever their rights and ties with the HUF and with a view to settle all the disputes raised in the suit, the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement and that they were signing and executing the said Memorandum of Understanding individually, collectively as well as in their capacity as coparceners of the HUF to record the terms of settlement already agreed upon, in writing to avoid any future d...

Mr. Sunil Bansal Vs. Respondent: Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and anr. ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus for consideration of his price bids submitted in response to a tender invited by the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., for the procurement of trucks for transportation of LPG cylinders in Haryana/Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the respondents are proceeding to accept the bids of those bidders who are offering trucks that are either not even Bharat Stage I complaint or Bharat Stage I or stage II compliant, manufactured prior to 1.4.2005, while refusing to entertain the petitioner who is also offering Bharat Stage II compliant trucks manufactured after 1.4.2005, only on the ground that the trucks offered by the petitioner are not Euro Stage III/Bharat Stage III compliant in respect of emission norms, even though the trucks offered by the petitioner are relatively new, and are entitled to ply on roads in the NCT of Delhi/NCR to pick up and set down goods within the NCT of Delhi/NCR.2. The respondent No. 1 M/s Bha...

Steel Craft (India) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ306CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. After hearing both the sides and going through the record and taking note of the fact that the appellant had already deposited the entire tax amount as well as interest payable and also a sum of Rs. 42,052/- towards penalty, it is directed that the amount of penalty of Rs. 42,052/- deposited by the appellant shall be treated as pre-deposit for the purpose of hearing the present appeal. The pre-deposit of the remaining amount of penalty payable under the impugned order is waived during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course. This application is disposed of accordingly....

R.M. Mittal Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(124)ECC192

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed refund claim of Rs. 1,05,000/-which was rejected on the ground that at the time of taking suo-moto credit, the appellants were not entitled for credit.The brief facts of the case are that appellants while working under the modvat scheme, availed credit of the amount in dispute. The revenue raised objection that the credit was taken on the strength of documents, which were not valid duty paying documents. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. The appellant filed appeal and the Tribunal vide final order dated 11.4.97, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Pursuant to the final order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed a refund claim on 15.9.97.As the revenue was not taking any action on the refund claim, the appellants took suo moto credit on 12.12.97. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund of duty....

New India Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)917

1. Hon'ble President under the powers conferred on him under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 has constituted the Special Bench to dispose of this appeal as well as to decide the following question: Whether, a provision for non-performing assets (in short 'NPA') debited to P&L a/c and claimed as a deduction in accordance with the Prudential Norms issued by the RBI in exercise of powers conferred on it under s. 45JA of the RBI Act, 1934, called the Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, should be allowed as deduction while computing income from business under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961? 2. The appellant is a non-banking finance company (in short 'NBFC') registered with the Reserve Bank of India (in short 'RBI'). The assessee debited a sum of Rs. 6,38,758 in its P&L a/c, being provision for non-performing assets (NPA). The assessee submitted that being an NBFC registered with the RBI, it has to follow the Prudential Norms as p...