Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Rolls Royce Plc Vs. Dy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals by assessee are directed against the common order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi dated 27-2-2007.2. The appellant Rolls Royce (P) Ltd. Co. (RR Plc) is a company incorporated in United Kingdom ('UK') and is a tax resident of that country. The appellant is a non-resident foreign company for the purpose of its tax assessment in India. The appellant was not filing any return of income in India. It was found by the assessing officer that the appellant was supplying aero-engines and spare parts to Indian customers, mainly to M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Indian Navy and Indian Air force. On examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was of the view that the appellant was having a business connection in India under Section 9 of the Act as well as PE under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 'Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement') between India and UK. The busi...

Rolls Royce Plc Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)446

1. All these appeals by assessee are directed against the common order of learned CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi dated 27.2.2007.2. The appellant Rolls Royce Private Ltd Company (RRPLC) is a company incorporated in United Kingdom ('UK') and is a tax resident of that country. The appellant is a non-resident foreign company for the purpose of its tax assessment in India. The appellant was not filing any return of income in India. It was found by the AO that the appellant was supplying aero-engines and spare parts of Indian Customers, mainly to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Indian Navy and Indian Air force. On examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO was of the view that the appellant was having a business connection in India Under Section 9 of the Act as well as permanent establishment under article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short 'DTAA') between India and UK. The business connection and permanent establishment were found to be in existen...

income Tax Officer Vs. De

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113CTR(Delhi)615

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. 154/2004-05 dt. 25th Aug., 2005 on the following ground: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,82,242 imposed by the AO under Section 221(1) without giving any convincing reasons for the same.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the issue involved in the ground of appeal are that the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 30th March, 1998 as per which demand of Rs. 56,87,640 was raised. The Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the AO. Even miscellaneous petition filed before the Tribunal was dismissed on 30th Aug., 2004. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant on 16th July, 2004. As a result of the order granting appeal effect to the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal, the total demand worked out to Rs. 1,16,17,005 out of which the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,00,0...

Sh. Gurubaksh Kumar S/O Sh. Kishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri Gurubaksh Kumar, applicant herein, holding the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-B since 1992 with the National Crime Records Bureau, second respondent herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking setting aside of Office Order dated 29.03.2006 vide which the second respondent had declined to relieve him to join on deputation in the Ministry of Labour & Employment, third respondent herein. In consequence of setting aside the impugned order dated 29.03.2006, the applicant seeks a direction to the second respondent to relieve him forthwith enabling him to take up the appointment on deputation basis on a post of Investigator Grade-II with the third respondent.2. The facts that may be relevant culminating into filing the present Original Application with the twin reliefs, as mentioned above, reveal that the applicant has been working on the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-B since 1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 45...

Anil Arora S/O J.N. Arora Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Vide order dated 16.1.1002, pursuant to regular departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant under Regulation 17 of DDA (Salaries, Allowances & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961, the applicant has been inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years without cumulative effect. The departmental proceedings were held against the applicant on the following charge: The said Shri Anil Arora, Jr. Engineer (Civil), D.D.A. while residing in a D.D.A. flat No. KD-63/A, Ashok Vihar during the year 1989 misused his official capacity to do illegal construction/encroachment in the shape of shops in the open space adjacent to flat No. KD-63/A, Ashok Vihar allotted to his mother. By his above act Shri Anil Arora, Junior Engineer exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravened Rule 4.1 (iii) of D.D.A. Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal Regulation 1999 applicable to the employees of the Authority...

Mrs. Prem Lata Ghai Vs. the Commissioner, Kendriya

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Issue a direction quashing and setting aside impugned Memorandum dtd. 27.9.2005 annexed hereto as Annexure A-1; Direct that the period from 4.2.1990 till 18.4.1996 be counted and treated as periods spent on duty along with all consequential benefits; Direct that the Applicant is entitled to arrears of pay and allowances during the period 4.2.1990 till 18.4.1996; Direct that the Applicant has spent more than 20 years of qualifying service and she is entitled to seek voluntary retirement.2. The brief facts as stated are that applicant joined as PRT in Kendriya Vidyalaya on 01.7.1974. On 23.10.1989, she sought six months' leave to see her husband who was in abroad. However, she was granted only three months' leave w.e.f. 10.11.1989. Accordingly, she should have joined on 08.2.1990. But once she reached abroad she herself fell sick, so she sent applications along with medical certificates for extension of leave. However, no reply was sent to her. She finally reported at KV AFS, Agra for d...

JaIn Studios Limited Vs. Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC640

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A suit was filed seeking to recover money by the respondent against the petitioner in the Mumbai High Court inclusive of principal and interest. The suit was filed in the year 1999 and on 27.2.2006 the parties agreed to refer the disputes, which were the subject matter of the suit, to arbitration. Justice S.N. Variava (Retd.) was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.2. On completion of pleadings, the parties agreed that the following two issues be tried as preliminary issues:(e) Whether the amended claim is barred by law of limitation?(f) Whether the amended claim falls outside the scope of reference by Order dated 27th February 2006?3. The learned arbitrator came to the conclusion that a part of the claim was barred by limitation but the remaining part was within time. It was also held that the amendments carried out to the claim were only clarificatory in nature and, thus, did not fall outside the scope of reference ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bluechip Construction Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)530

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 27th April, 2005 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C in IT(SS)A No. 136/Del/2003 relevant for the block asst. yr. 1986-87 to 14th Sept., 1995.2. A search was carried out in the premises of the assessed company and in the residential premises of one of its directors Mr. P.K. Dang on 15th Sept., 1995. On the basis of the search, notices were issued to the assessed who filed its return under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for an amount of Rs. 3,20,134. An assessment order was passed on 30th Sept., 1996 but since the assessed was not satisfied with that order, it preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') and by an order dt. 29th Jan., 2001 the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded it back to the file of the AO. The AO then passed a fresh assessment order on 31st March, 2003 against which the assessed filed another appeal, which came to be disposed of by the order under appe...

Smt. Krishna Gupta Vs. Shri Sita Ram Singhal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ211

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Crl. L.P. No. 231/2006Leave to appeal is allowed for the reasons given therein.Crl Appeal No. 643/20071. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29th September, 2006 whereby he allowed a Revision filed by the respondent and set aside a notice issued under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to the respondent on a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act filed by the appellant.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 against Shri Sita Ram Singhal, Secretary Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Coop., Housing Building Society Limited, R/o Sanjay Gram, Delhi Road, Gurgaon, 122001, Haryana.3. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant made full payment for purchase of a plot to accused in the year 1994 but accused failed to deliver the possession of the plot to complainant. Thereafter, a settlement was arrived in respect of the plot and a...

Ocean Structures (P) Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)338

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') is directed against the Order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 2847/Del/2002 for the Assessment Year 1999- 2000. The Tribunal reversed the Order dated 15.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [the 'CIT(A)'] and held that the income earned by the assessed should be charged to tax under Section 22, i.e., under the head 'income from house property' and not under Section 28 of the Act, i.e., under the head 'profits and gains of business'2. The assessed constructed a building named 'CTC Plaza' on a plot of land measuring 1200 sq. yds. at F-43, Kilokri Ring Road, Ashram Chowk, New Delhi ('the premises'). The assessed entered into a license agreement dated 30.9.1998 with M/s Chhabra Silk and Sarees, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi under which the licensee was permitted to use the premises for its business of dealing in sarees, garments, fabrics, ...