Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Dharampal Premchand Ltd. Vs. Golden Tabacoo Products

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi266; 2007BusLRSN-13(Del); LC2007(2)135; 2007(34)PTC633(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.CM No.6527/2007 (Exemption)1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CAVEAT No. 556/20072. Since Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent the caveat stands discharged.FAO (OS) No. 144/2007 and CM No. 6526/20073. At the threshold, Mr. Vidhani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the Respondent does not propose to file any cross objections or any Appeal against the Order impugned before us. This is relevant for the reason that in para 9 of the impugned Order the Plaintiff/Appellant has been permitted to file fresh suit before this very court after giving up certain reliefs. In these circumstances, the construction sought to be given by Mr. Vidhani to Order VII Rule 10 CPC is no longer worthy of consideration. Rule 10, according to Mr. Vidhani, does not permit the breaking up of reliefs. We do not agree with this construction of Order VII Rule 10 CPC, but in view of the Relief granted by the learned Single Judg...

Ajay Home Product Limited and anr. Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ471

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR NO.187 dated 16.7.2005 under Sections 406/420/471 of IPC, Section 50 of Delhi Sales Tax Act and Section 9 of Central Sales Tax Act, registered at Police Station Naraina.2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a company and petitioner No. 2 is Managing Director of this company. The petitioner company has been manufacturing and dealing in consumer home products and filing sales tax returns in respect of Central Sales Tax and State Sale Tax. During survey of the petitioners returns, it was found that the petitioner reflected sales of consumer goods to the tune of Rs. 5,24,08,355/- as exempted sales to US Embassy against exemption certificates, during assessment years 2000-01 and sale of consumer goods worth Rs. 5.62 crores as exempted sale against exemption certificates during 2001-02. The petitioners submitted nine s...

Sawhney Rubber Industries, Prop., Sh. B.L. Sawhney Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)536; (2007)IIILLJ50Del

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By this common judgment two appeals bearing No. ITA 821 and 824/2006 filed by the assessed arising out of common order dated 16th December, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short as 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 5389/Del/94 (assessment year 1991-92) and ITA No. 7602/Del/95 (assessment year 1992-93) are being disposed of.2. The assessed is in the business of manufacturing of cycle tyres and tubes. The Assessing Officer on scrutiny of the Profit and Loss A/c of the assessed noticed that the commission paid by the assessed had increased to Rs. 55,68,854/- from Rs. 33,34,235/- in the last year. The assessed was required to file details of the commission. It was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessed paid substantial commission to two parties namely M/s Associates Agencies and M/s Sawhney Tyres @ 3% for the period from April, 1990 to September, 1991. Earlier the commission was paid @ 2% from May, 1988 to March, 1989 and it was increased to 2.5% from 1...

Naresh Bhutani Vs. Vijay Kumar Khurana and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ117

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th October, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction instituted by the appellant against the respondents.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, plaintiff in the court below, agreed to purchase the property bearing No. E-67, Moti Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) from the respondents, defendants in the court below. While there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as earnest money to the respondents (a sum of Rs. 2 lacs having been paid on 21st January, 1996 and the balance sum of Rs. 2 lacs on 2nd February, 1996), the parties are not at ad idem in respect of the sale consideration of the suit premises. While it was the case of the appellant that the suit premises was agreed to be purchased by him for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, the respondents contende...

Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Ltd. (Earlier Known as Perfetti India Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR595(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the assessed has challenged two orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short as 'Tribunal'), that is, order dated 22nd April, 2004 in ITA No. 4976/Del/2000 (for the assessment year 1998-99) vide which the Tribunal upheld, the disallowance of loss of Rs. 38,30,000/- to the assessed and order dated 15th June, 2005 passed under Section 254(2) of the Act in Misc.Application No. 133/Del/2005 (assessment year 1998-99) vide which the rectification application of the assessed was dismissed.2. The assessment order for the year in question was passed on 10th January, 2001 vide which foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs. 38,30,000/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer.3. The assessed filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who upheld the disallowance on the ground that the exchange fluctuation related to long term l...

Ashish Kumar Pal and Prashant Kumar Pal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ371

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 376/506/342 and 120-B of IPC and against order of sentence whereby the appellants were sentenced to 7 years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 376 and R.I. for one year each for offence under Section 120-B IPC and R.I. for three years each for offence under Section 506 and R.I. for 6 months each for the offence under Section 342 IPC.2. Both the appellants are real brothers and used to live as tenants in the house of Smt. Santosh Duggal at house no. 26, Shankar Vihar, Delhi. Smt. Santosh Duggal was also an accused in this case. However, she died during trial. Km. Priya Jain, who is prosecutrix used to live in the adjoining house i.e. in house no. 24, Shankar Vihar with her parents. She was a student of 10th standard at Riyan International School at the time of incident.3. The facts leadi...

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ174CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner made on 18.12.2006, confirming the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 22,13,598/-under Section 73 read with Sections 66 and 68 of the Finance Act 1944, ordering interest on that amount under Section 75 of the Act and imposing penalty of Rs. 100/- per day subject to the maximum equal to the amount of service tax, under Section 76, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act.2. During the course of the arguments, it appeared that though the appellant was not able to produce documentary evidence earlier for claiming adjustment, it was demonstrated before us from the documents that the service tax was computed even in respect of the refund of security deposit and other refunds made to the customers on account of circuit termination, the amounts of dishonored cheques, the amount of service tax which was wrongly paid twice, excess amount paid by the customers on which service tax was paid, amounts recovere...

Agarwal Colour Labs Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant seeks interim stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalty enhanced under the order dated 27.11.2006, made by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel, that in the appeal, which has been preferred before the Tribunal (Appeal No. ST/122/05-ST), the appellant has deposited the entire amount of service tax by way of pre-deposit and an application for restoration has been filed, since the deposit though made within the time given, compliance could not be reported. It appears that the question of penalty under Section 76, which was initially Rs. 7,000/- as imposed by the adjudicating authority and which has been raised under the impugned revisionary order to Rs. 100/- per day, is the subject matter of the appeal which has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have dismissed the appeal for non-compli...

Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR296

1. The applicant has filed an appeal challenging the order of Commissioner, Service Tax made on 19.12.2006, in which the Consulting Engineering Services received by the applicant after 16.8.2002 have been brought under the tax net. A demand of Rs. 9,03,54,355/- has been confirmed by the Commissioner who has also imposed penalty under various provisions of the Act on various counts.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant would refer to the two agreements to state that these agreements are for licence to use know-how, patents, trade marks, and technical assistance. He argues that know-how is of the nature of property, and hence cannot be taxed as the Consulting Engineering Services. He also states that the technical assistance rendered in this case is only incidental for the purpose of transfer of know-how and hence it cannot be perceived as a service. He also states that there has been a gross arithmetical error in the calculation of the tax liability in the impugned order.According t...

Man Structural Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 2,02,729/- and penalty of Rs. 500/-along with Rs. 100/- per day imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. The learned advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that in this case, the service tax was demanded for the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998 on goods transport operator. He submits that their case is covered under Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, show cause notice issued under Section 73 is not sustainable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar factories Ltd. 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.).4. On perusal of the record, I find that it has been alleged in the show cause notice that the applicants are required to pay service tax at the applicable rate of 5% along with interest and also required to file ST-3 return in the manner as prescribed under Section 71 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the applicant failed to make o...