Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asian Hotels Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)84; 2008(100)DRJ454

S. Muralidhar, J.1. ITA No. 794 of 2007 is an appeal by the Revenue against the judgment dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi in ITA No. 1266(Del.)/2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-01. ITA No. 998 of 2007 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 9th February, 2001 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 430(Del.)/1998 for the Assessment Year 1995-96. Since both the appeals raise an identical question, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue in both appeals is as follows:Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notional interest on refundable interest free deposit received by the assessed in respect of a shop let out on rent was neither taxable as business profit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') nor income from house property under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act3. The assessed had received interest free depo...

Hartlay Knits Vs. Dvh Industries Inc. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ34

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The plaintiff, a partnership firm is engaged in the business of exporting readymade garments to foreign countries. Defendant No. 2 is claimed to be an agent of defendant No. 3 and in that capacity placed a purchase order with the plaintiff in March-April 1999 for supply of specified quantities of cotton readymade garments vide Exhibit P-2. The detailed description of the garments was given in the purchase order.2. In order to secure the payment of the plaintiff, the buyer bank at USA opened irrevocable letters of credit to the plaintiff's bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce. The goods were to be transported free of board through nominated carrier.3. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the goods were duly dispatched along with invoices totalling to US $ 1,27,085.50. The payment was not made to the plaintiff but the possession of the goods was taken over and it is alleged that the same occurred on account of collusion between the nominated carrier, buyer and its a...

Areva T and D India Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ7CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the cenvat credit utilized by the appellant for payment of service tax on GTA services is admissible to the appellant.2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformer and switchgear etc. They paid service tax on the service of transport of goods through cenvat account. Learned Advocate read the various provisions of service tax rules. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Goa v.Essel Propacks Ltd. reported in 2007 (83) RLT 480 (CESTAT-Mum.) held in favour of the assessee.3. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that GTA service cannot be considered as an output service in this case and the service tax liability should be discharged through TR-6 challan instead of cenvat account.4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the c...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Keane Worldzen India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR471

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside and condoned the delay in filing declaration of export of service and the adjudicating authority was directed to verify the claim of export of service of the respondent.2. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.3. Ld. DR reiterates the Grounds of Appeal. He submits that the Notification stipulates the procedures for claiming rebate of service tax, which was not followed by the respondent and, therefore, the claim is not acceptable. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the delay in filing declaration, which is beyond the scope of Notification and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.4. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, I find that vide Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005, Export of Service Rules, 2005 effective from 15^th March, 2005 e...

Taran Angad Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ9CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are registered for payment of Service Tax as an "Authorized Service Station" They are also engaged in the business of selling vehicles from their showroom as a dealer of M/s. Hero Honda Motor Ltd. The appellants paid the service tax on GTA service for receiving the two wheelers from M/s. Hero Honda Ltd., which they utilized for service of "Authorised Service Station". They have also availed the credit on insurance service, telephone service. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of Rs. 30,790/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- upon the appellant, which they have taken credit on GTA service. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.2. The ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit on GTA service on the ground that the receipt of vehicles from M/s. Hero Honda Ltd. has no nexus with authorized service station. He plac...

Cce Vs. Agarwal Trading Co. and Diamond

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Common issue is involved in these appeal and, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the credit on service tax paid on mobile phones is admissible to the respondent as 'input service' in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v.CCE, Bhavnagar reported in 2006 (4) STR 79 (Tribunal-Mumbai) held in favour of the assesses. It is contended by the ld. DR that the said decision has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court. I do not find force in the submissions of the ld. DR. The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected....

Dr. NitIn Kumar Son of Shri Rajpal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through I ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ348CAT

1. In the context that an order dated 23.10.2007 issued by the respondents is the subject matter of challenge in all the three Original Applications, as agreed to by the parties, they are heard jointly and are also being disposed of by a common order. Since the services of the applicants, who were Medical Officers working under the respondents, were sought to be terminated, at the time when the applications had been filed, there were submissions that the operation of the order may be suspended. But taking into account the totality of the facts, it had been suggested that it should have been in the interest of all concerned if applications were disposed of expeditiously. The respondents had offered to file their counter reply without any delay. When the pleadings were complete, it was agreed by the parties that the formalities of hearing could be concluded even without formally listing the matters for regular hearing.2. In OA 1970/2007 and 1971/2007, the respondent is Government of NCT...

Shri Saurabh Srivastava Vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)111ITD287(Delhi)

1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (In short 'the CIT(A)'), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998- 99 and the following question has been referred to this Special Bench for its decision : Whether, the non-compete fee received by the assessee from FI Plc., U.K. is not liable to tax being in the nature of capital receipt? 2. The material facts relevant to the question referred to this Bench are that the assessee was a Computer Engineer associated with Software and Information Technology. He was the promoter and founder of as well as the Managing Director in one Software Company, viz M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd. He held 8,66,450 shares of the said company. The said company was agreed to be taken over by the FI Group Plc. UK and as per the shares purchase agreement dated 4.12.1997 entered into by the U.K. company with the shareholders of M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd, including the assessee, 76% of the subscribed equity capital ...

Finance Officer, Maharishi Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)914

1. This appeal is by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt.30th Aug., 2005 pertaining to the financial year 2001-02. In this appeal, the primary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is in default under Sections 201 and 201 (1A) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the impugned financial year in spite of the fact that in the immediately financial year, the Tribunal had adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee.2. Briefly stated the circumstances leading upto the present proceedings can be understood as follows. The assessee before us is a university which was inter alia deducting tax at source on salaries and other benefits paid to its teaching as well as non-teaching staff. The AO noted that the assessee was providing accommodation to its teaching and non-teaching staff and in turn it was charging standard rent for the aforesaid accommodation. The standard rent, depending on the type of accommodation allotted to an emplo...

Shri Saurabh Srivastava Vs. Dy. Commr. of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (In short 'the CIT(A)'), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998-99 and the following question has been referred to this Special Bench for its decision: Whether, the non-compete fee received by the assessee from FI Plc, U.K. is not liable to tax being in the nature of capital receipt 2. The material facts relevant to the question referred to this Bench are that the assessee was a Computer Engineer associated with Software and Information Technology. He was the promoter and founder of as well as the Managing Director in one Software Company, viz M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd. He held 8,66,450 shares of the said company. The said company was agreed to be taken over by the FI Group Pic. UK and as per the shares purchase agreement dated 4.12.1997 entered into by the U.K. company with the shareholders of M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd, including the assessee, 76% of the subscribed equity capital was ...