Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Tirumurthi Mills Vs. Registrar, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1003]; (2008)2LLJ832Del

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated September 18,2007 passed by the learned single Judge directing the appellant to deposit 40% of the determined amount as a pre-condition of hearing the appeal on merit. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal as against the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore dated August 2, 2005 under the provisions of Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Section 7-0 of the Act provides that an appeal could be entertained by the Tribunal only upon the employer depositing 75% of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A of the Act. There is aproviso to the said provision granting power to the Tribunal to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited for reasons to be recorded in writing.2. The appellant being aggrieved by the direction issued by E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal, wherein a prayer was made for comp...

H.E.G. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT212TriDel

1. None appeared on behalf of the applicant in spite of issue of notice. Heard the Id. DR and perused the records and the appeal is admitted.2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax of Rs. 42,000/- and penalty of Rs. 4,000/-. On perusal of the order, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of credit on the services of telephone installed at the residence, which do not cover under the purview of the input services under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He has also denied credit on the service tax paid on the insurance of personal accident, cleaning and maintenance of garden, canteen building, and repairing of street light. I find that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, prima facie, sustainable.The applicant failed to make out a, prima facie, case for waiver of entire amount of tax and penalty. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of tax within six weeks.After deposit of the said amoun...

Cce Vs. Silver Oak Gardens Resort

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR481

1. The Revenue challenges the order dated 15.4.2007 setting-aside the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondent under Sections 76 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.The appellant was engaged in providing services of mandap keeper.According to the Revenue, the services were provided in a surreptitious manner and bills of lesser amount than the actual amount charged were issued and there were unaccounted functions held in the resorts of the appellant. The adjudicating authority found that service tax of Rs. 1,66,222/- was tried to be willfully evaded The demand was, therefore, confirmed and the amount deposited was appropriated along with interest. Penalty of equal amount of Rs. 1,66,222/- was imposed under Section 76, and further penalty equal to twice the amount of service tax determined i.e. of Rs. 3,32,444/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Act on the respondent.2. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting-aside the appeal has been challeng...

Ajit Kumar S/O Shri Balwant Singh Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D. Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged order dated 13.11.2006 (page 11) whereby his services have been terminated by attracting Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and also order dated 25.01.2007 (page 12) whereby his representation has been rejected relying on the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 1621/1996 - Shri Shankar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.2. Brief facts submitted by the applicant are that he applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 2005 and was allowed to join services on 25.03.2006 after he was duly selected. He was shocked to receive order dated 13.11.2006 whereby his services were terminated without giving any reasons. Being aggrieved, he filed a statutory appeal. It is by this order that applicant came to know that his termination was in fact stigmatic in nature, therefore, it ought to have been issued only after holding appropriate enquiry becaus...

Dr. P.C. Agrawal (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Tribunal maybe pleased to direct the respondents, as per the law to pay. (i) Interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.30,744 for the period of deprivation of 7 = years (i.e. 1.12.1998 to 12.7.2006).2. It is stated by the applicant that he was appointed as a full time consultant with NIC on 01.12.1997 and worked upto 30.11.1998 in the pre-revised consultancy fee @ Rs.4000/- pm. DoP&T vide OM dated 13.2.1998 revised the consultancy fee retrospectively w.e.f. 01.12.1997 to maximum of Rs.13000/- pm. His request to revise the fee having not been acceded to, he filed OA 2255/2005 which was disposed off with a direction to reconsider the case for enhancing the consultancy fee by an appropriate amount.3. Pursuant to the directions, respondents vide letter dated 12.7.2006 decided to enhance the consultancy fee to Rs.6562/- from Rs.4000/- for the period from 01.12.1997 to 30.11.1998 and paid the difference of Rs.30,744/-. On 12.7.2006 i.e. after inordinate delay of 7= years which entitles applicant t...

Whirlpool of India Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)211

1. The assessee in this appeal is a company, incorporated on 27th July.1995 as a financial enterprise, the main objects according to the memorandum of association being to carry on the business of financing all kinds of goods, including consumer goods and consumer durables, machinery, equipment, etc., to purchase or finance all kinds of financial instruments, such as, notes, drafts, bills of exchanges, commercial paper, bill of lading and so on and so forth, to finance private industrial enterprise in India by way of loans or advances and to infuse capital in them and to carry on the business of hire purchase, general finance brokers and bill brokers. The first board meeting was held on 12th Aug., 1995 in which additional directors, executives and auditors were appointed. On 4th Sept., 1995, the company placed orders for purchase of computers and peripherals. During the months of September and October, 1995, various key employees such as branch managers, regional managers, consumer fi...

Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109ITD101(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the taxpayer for the Asstt. Year 2002-03 (F.A.2001-02) is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[in short CIT(A)] New Delhi dated 3.3.2006. The main dispute pertains to adjustment/addition of INR 1,45,73,857 in the income of the taxpayer by the revenue authorities on account of determination of arm's length price (ALP) for software services provided to its Associated Enterprises(AE). The deduction claimed by the taxpayer under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act but denied by the tax authorities is also subject matter of dispute in appeal.2. The facts in short compass, the taxpayer, a domestic company incorporated on Feb.27, 1998 under the Indian Companies Act is the wholly owned subsidiary of IKOS Systems Inc., a company incorporated in USA and engaged in the business of software development and also rendering marketing systems services to the parent company. The taxpayer filed its return of income for the year under consideration on October...

Mitsubishi Corporation Vs. Deputy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These three appeals of the assessee emanate from a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi, on 27-8-2004. The appeals involve common grounds and they were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel of the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, we find it expedient to pass a common order.2. The assessee has taken eight grounds in the appeals. However, the learned Counsel for the assessee explained that the material question in these appeals is whether, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was right in holding that the tax paid by the employer in respect of salaries paid to the employees is 'salary' under rule 3, for the purpose of computing the value of perquisites in respect of rent-free accommodation provided to the expatriate employees 2.1 From the order of the assessing officer dated 31-3-2004, passed under Section 154 of the Act, it transpires that an order under Section 201 and Section 201(1A) was passed for financia...

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the order of 30-3-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2000-01. These appeals which were heard together are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We first take up the appeal by the assessee in ITA No.3711/Del/2003. In this appeal, the assessee has raised disputes on five different grounds, which have been dealt with in the succeeding paras.2.1 Ground No. 1 of the dispute raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of depreciation on the increased liability of Rs. 3,77,933 in respect of purchase of the asset, on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate. The assessing officer did not allow the claim after observing that additional liability could arise only in the year when the amount on account of exchange rate fluctuation was actually paid. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance following the decision of the Tribunal on the same i...

K.S. Bakshi and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT125

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the scope and ambit of the expression 'other liability' occurring in Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. Petitioners, directors of the company Ansal Buildwell Ltd., imp leaded as accused Nos. 4 and 5 in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act seek quashing of the complaint as also the summoning order dated 23.9.2002.3. Facts in brief are that Ansal Buildwell Company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of construction of the buildings.4. Respondent No. 2, i.e. Ms. Usha Uppal and one Mr. Rakesh Bedi were the owners of the property bearing No. 4, Hailey Road, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the said property).5. On 10.6.1989, a MOU was entered into between the respondent No. 2, Rakesh Bedi and Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (hereinafte...