Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Sandeep Kumar (Huf) Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)151; [2007]293ITR294(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') challenging the order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'C' in IT(SS) No. 6(Del)/1999 for the block period 1st April 1986 to 29th August, 1996.2. The facts of this case are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Karta of the assessed HUF Sh. Sandeep Kumar. Certain documents/loose papers were seized during the course of search. Proceedings under Section 158BD were initiated against the assessed on 7th January, 1998 and the assessed filed return declaring 'nil' undisclosed income on 17th February, 1998. During the course of search,` a set of cheque books and pass books of NRE account of the donors of the alleged gifts to this group were recovered from the business premises of the Karta of the assessed HUF. From...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nestle India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR682(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 24th March, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi in ITA No. 2039/Del/99 and 4909/Del/99 relevant for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. The only issue that arises in this appeal, as noted in our order dated 9th October, 2006, is whether an opinion should have been expressed by the Tribunal that the question of membership of Madras Gymkhana Club taken by the assessed was with a view to promote its business.3. We find from a perusal of the assessment order that a membership fee of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid by the assessed to the Madras Gymkhana Club. In so far as expenses incurred by the assessed towards food etc. are concerned, they were subject to disallowance under Section 37(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. As regards the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs paid towards membership fee of the club is concerned, the Assessing Officer permitted a disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh that is 50% of Rs. 2...

Anand Kumar Makker and ors. Vs. Iit-delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT424; 2007(95)DRJ674

Mukul Mudgal, J.CM 5524/2006 (restoration)For the reasons mentioned in the application, this application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. LPA 262/2001 1. This appeal has been filed against the common judgment and final order dated 10th April 2001 passed in C.W.P. Nos. 1454/1990, 2255/1988, 2275/1988, 380/1989 and 490/1988 by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellants were appointed as Senior Research Assistants (SRAs) by the Respondent Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute'). Since the Respondent had unilaterally converted the services of the appellants to contractual services and was also attempting to terminate their services, writ petitions were filed praying for directions to the Respondent to seek a prayer that the appellants (writ petitioner before the Learned Single Judge) were confirmed and declared permanent employees of the Respondent in the cadre o...

Mahindera Devi and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1812

J.M. Malik, J.1. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and as such, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte vide orders passed by my learned predecessor on 29th November, 2006. 2. I have heard counsel for the appellants. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention towards para 14 of the order passed by Shri S.P. Singh, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The said para is produced ver batim:14. Considering the Workmen's Compensation Act is a 'Social Welfare Association'. Further considering the facts that the appellant had waited a year to get the applied amount of compensation in the interest of justice, I hereby allow her interest @ 12% from the date of order i.e. 26/05/2004 to 04/05/2005 i.e. the date that the balance payment was made to her i.e. Rs. 35,657.00 (Rupees Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven Only).3. The appellants have picked up a conflict with this order and pointed out that as per Section 4A Clause 3...

Swati Aluminium Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mullins Steering Gears and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ51(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is a public limited company engaged in business of supplying steering boxes. Plaintiff No. 2 is a director of plaintiff No. 1 and is stated to have represented plaintiff No. 1 in the negotiations with defendants for supply of such steering boxes. Plaintiff nos 3 & 4 are stated to the proprietor firms. 2. The aforesaid negotiations are stated to have done on or about 20.01.1999 which resulted in the plaintiff No. 2 receiving a memorandum from one Mr. Bill Mullins of defendant No. 1/Company regarding steering boxes and blue prints along with drawings and specifications for the steering boxes which the defendant No. 1 wanted to procure. The supply is stated to have started some time in July, 2000. The invoices expressly state declaration of exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Plaintiff No. 1 is also agreed to have invested $ 60,000 vide its letter dated 16.07.2001 to get the tooling of Vega Boxes ready but subject to the condition of defendant ...

Mahesh Vs. State of (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ60

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Vide this judgment we shall dispose of two Criminal Appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 949/2004 titled Mahesh v. State and Criminal Appeal No. 511/2004 titled as Mamta v. State both arising out of judgment dated 13th April, 2004 and order on sentence dated 22nd April, 2004. 2. Both the Appellants have been held guilty of murder of Anand and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Co-accused Rajesh was given benefit of reasonable doubt and was accordingly acquitted. 4. On 3rd May, 1999 around 5.40 P.M. information was received from Lachari that his son Anand had been murdered in Jhuggi C-406, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Camp. This information was recorded as DD No.18 (Exhibit PW8/A). Police reached the spot and found deceased Anand lying dead in his jhuggi in a pool of blood on a wooden bed. Complainant along with number of other persons was present ...

The Commissionr of Income Tax Vs. Relaxo Footwears Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT748; [2007]293ITR231(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') filed by Revenue challenging the order dated 11th August, 2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'C', in ITA No. 4701/Del/1998 and ITA No. 4795/Del/1998 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. Brief facts of this case are that M/s. Relaxo Footwears Ltd. ( for short 'the assessed') is a company engaged in trading of all kinds of rubber footwears and in the year under consideration, the assessed had commenced the business of manufacture and sale of Hawai Chappals at its factory at Bahadurgarh. The assessed filed the return of income on 30th November, 1995 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,50,98,660/- and the same was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessed has claimed pre-operative expenses of Rs. 41,24,841/- in the computation of t...

D.T.C. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ48

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 26th February 1990, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, whereunder it was held that the dismissal of the workman, respondent No. 3 herein, was not preceded by a proper enquiry and the petitioner management (respondent therein), had not made any prayer to lead evidence to prove the allegations against respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent workman'), and accordingly it was held that the dismissal of the respondent workman was unlawful and mala fide and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination. 2. Facts relevant for disposing of the present petition are as follows. The respondent workman was in employment of the petitioner corporation as a Conductor. On 1st August, 1973, while the respondent workman was on duty, he was challaned by the checking staff on the allegation that he had...

Cst Vs. Hma Udyog Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this application for staying the operation of the impugned order on the ground that refund claim of Rs. 82,544/- is time-barred. In these circumstances, the refund of Rs. 82,544/- is staved during the pendency of the appeal....

Guru Nanak Exports Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(215)ELT277TriDel

1. The appellant presented a consignment of man made fabric for export under shipping bill dated 30.3.06. The gross (export) price was about Rs. 131 per meter and the net price about Rs. 114 per meter. The item under export was eligible for DEPB benefit @ 7.8%. Thus, on the FOB value, the appellant claimed a DEPB benefit of about Rs. Five lakhs.2. Custom authorities subjected the consignment to price verification and quantitative check. A quantity difference (shortage) of about 3000/- meters, as against the declared quantity of 50,000/- meters (6.23%) was noted. Price enquiries showed that similar goods were in the range of Rs. 50/- per meter to Rs. 72 per meter.3. Based on the above findings, the authorities adopted the average value at Rs. 66 per meter as the reasonable value. In adjudication, the goods were confiscated upon a finding of mis-declaration of value.Opportunity to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 5.5. lakhs along with penalty of Rs. Two lakhs was imposed. The present ...