Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Dy. Cit Vs. Binary Semantics Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the revenue emanates from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-1V, New Delhi, passed on 8-11-2004. The order of assessment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 3(1), New Delhi (hereinafter called the assessing officer), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short), on 24-12-2003, assessing the total income at Rs. 2,95,55,170. The revenue has taken two grounds in the appeal to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to exclude from the total turnover : (i) expenditure incurred in foreign exchange in making payments to software professionals outside India; (ii) expenditure incurred in foreign exchange in sending software professional abroad, while computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act.2. In the assessment order, it is mentioned that the assessee company is engaged in the activity of trading of generic software, and providi...

Aditya Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Land and Development Office and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT183

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner, by way of this petition, is challenging the order dated 04.04.2006 whereby the petitioner's application for mutation and conversion from lease hold to free hold in respect of the premises situated at plot No. 2, Block No. 159, known as 3, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi was rejected by the Deputy Land and Development Officer. The petitioner also seeks the cancellation of the demand raised on 07.01.1997 in respect of unearned increase to the tune of Rs. 17,33,66,420/- as being contrary to the terms of the perpetual lease which, admittedly, is a government grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895.2. Coming straightaway to the impugned order / letter dated 4.4.2006, the same reads as under:Sub : Premises situated on Plot No. 2 Block No. 159 known as 3 Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi.Sir,I am directed to refer to your conversion application No. 11322 dated 15.1.2000 for conversion of aforesaid property from lease hold into freehold and ...

Miss Varuna Kochar Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ513

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, named as accused in a First Information Report, invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings.2. The complainant Vandana Kochar, (respondent in the proceedings, hereafter 'the wife') married Rakesh Kochar, the petitioner's brother (hereafter 'the husband') on 3.3.1995, at NOIDA. A minor daughter was born out of the wedlock. The wife alleged that soon after marriage, her-in-laws started harassing her for jewellery and dowry, and, upon their provocation, the husband also threatened to divorce her. The husband and the Petitioner filed a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the complainant from entering the matrimonial home, in 1996. By that time, the complainant had gone to her parental house; the suit alleged that the complainant was intimidating the present petitioner and the husband. Upon a joint application moved by the petitioner, the husband and the complainant, the suit was compromised. The complainant Vandan...

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT407; I(2007)DMC654; 2007(95)DRJ347

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The appellant, before he was entrapped in a corruption case on 2.11.1994, was working as an Inspector in Delhi Police and was posted as Chowki in-charge at Police Post Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. Entrustment of and investigation of a dowry death case by him turned out to be his nemesis. He was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.4,500/= from the relatives of the deceased as consideration to help them in early recovery of dowry articles from the house of deceased's in-laws. The appellant was charged and tried by the Special Judge, Delhi for offences under Section 7 and also under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after trial was convicted and sentenced on the said charges vide impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge, Delhi on 10.4.2002. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the offences for which he was convicted. Aggrieved by hi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nhk Japan Broadcasting Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Del)349; [2007]291ITR331(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated March 10, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in I.T.A. No. 3030 to 3040/Del/2001 relevant for the financial years 1988-89 to 1998-99.2. The assessed is a Japanese organization set up for of the collection and transmission of news and broadcasting.3. The assessed pays salary to its employees and also some housing allowance. The controversy before us pertains to citizens tax which, it appears, is a statutory payment required to be made by Japanese citizens.4. The Assessing Officer included citizens tax as a part of the income of the employees on the ground that it was an amount paid by the assessed to its employees. According to the Assessing Officer, tax on this amount was liable to be deducted by the assessed at source.5. Feeling aggrieved, the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the contention urged was that citizens tax is a statutory levy on all Japanese citizen...

Dda Vs. Parsu Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ548

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. All these petitions arise out of the common order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 8.2.2006 passed in appeals preferred by the respondents under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeals were preferred by the respondents against the separate eviction orders passed by the Estate Officer.2. The impugned order, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, suffers from an infirmity as it was passed upon a misconstruction that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1986SC872 held that in the case of a perpetual lease, the Estate Officer did not have authority or jurisdiction to direct eviction under Section 5(2) of the said Act under a summary process. The exact words used by the learned Additional District Judge are as under:However, in any view of the matter, it is worthwhile to note here that the said premise...

Suram Pal Singh Vs. Savita

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)DMC833

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the HMA No 447 of 2000 filed by the appellant herein seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.Background facts:2. The appellant and the respondent were married in Delhi on 26.2.1984. A female child was born to them on 14.11.1985. The case of the appellant is that right from the beginning, the respondent showed no interest in doing the household work; was not interested to live in the village where matrimonial home was located and started showing disrespect to him in the presence of his relatives. She had insisted for the delivery of the first child in Delhi to which the petitioner reluctantly agreed just to please the respondent. Even after return to the matrimonial home, the behavior of the respondent did not been change and she insisted on their returning to Delhi. It is stated that on 25.4.1984 when some relatives ...

Prashant Manchanda Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT423; 2007(95)DRJ449

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition has been made by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the respondent No.2to register an FIR against Mr. K.K. Paul, Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint dated 16th October, 2006 made by the petitioner to SHO Police Station Mukerjee Nagar, respondent No.2, on the ground that the police was duty bound to register an FIR whenever a complaint is made to the police in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State(NCT of Delhi) : 2006CriLJ1622 . The petitioner has quoted paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of the said judgment and submitted that SHO was obliged to register an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that father of the petitioner Mr. Davender Manchanda (hereinafter referred as to 'the deceased') was an Inspector in Delhi Police. While he was posted at Police Station Kashmiri Gate...

H Vs. W and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ609

S. Muralidhar, J.1.1 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's petition HMA No. 303 of 2003 for dissolution of his marriage with Respondent No. 1 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1959 (Act') inter alia on the ground of cruelty.1.2 There are two respondents in the appeal. Since the office report indicated that both respondents were avoiding service the appellant was permitted to serve them by publication. The respondents 1 and 2 were served through publication as recorded in the orders dated 20.7.2006 and 28.8.2006. Despite service, neither respondent appeared in these proceedings and were accordingly set ex parte by this Court by the Order dated 27.9.2006. The appellant was directed to file a synopsis and the arguments of the appellant were heard finally on 14.2.2007. Background facts2. Both the appellant and Respondent No. 1 were studying in Rohtak Medical College in 1984. W...

Kotdwar Steels Ltd. and ors. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC25

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. Duty demand is on account of denial of the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No.50/03 dt.10.6.03.2. The appellant's claim was that production capacity was increased from 4 MT to 5.8 MT and this satisfied the requirement of substantial expansion (25%). The appellant had also produced certificates from the General Manager of District Industries Centre as well as certificate from Shri S.C. Agarwal, Chartered Engineer in support of the claims. It had also bills relating to purchase of equipment for expansion of the capacity. i) That as stipulated in the Board's circular No. 772/5/2004-CX dt.21.1.04, they had not installed additional machinery furnace and they claimed to have upgraded the capacity of said furnace by adding certain electric parts. ii) That as per the definition given by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Travancore Titanium Product v. CC. The substantial expansion claimed by the party is not on such a scale and s...