Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Rajender Kumar and Shri Raj Pal Vs. Mr. Deepak Makwana and Mr. Babu Pr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi92

J.M. Malik, J. 1. This is a very significant appeal wherein the allegation is that a cloud has been cast over the immovable property of a minor. Sh. Khicchu was the owner of properties No. 20, 28/1, 29 to 33 comprised in Khasra No. 642 situated in village Chandrawali, abadi of Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi. Sh. Khicchu executed a Will and bequeathed the above said properties in favor of Deepak Makwana, aged about 11 years respondent No. 1, his maternal grand son. After his death, respondent No. 1 has become the absolute owner of the above said properties.2. Babu Prakash, defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 is real father as respondent No. 1. He is addicted to liquor and gambling. In the instant suit which was filed through her mother, the minor plaintiff alleged that his father had acted illegally against his welfare and unauthorisedly parted with and delivered the possession of shop No. 32 and 33 to Rajender Kumar and Rajpal, appellants/defendants No. 2 & 3 by receiving a sum of Rs. 65,000/-...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yamu Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)445; [2008]306ITR309(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Admit.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the notice sent to the assessed under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not served within the period of limitation?3. Filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. assessed-company had filed its return of income on 30th November, 1996 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,710/-. The first notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 7th October, 1997 and subsequently on 9th February, 1998, a notice was served by affixation at the address of the company. Later on several notices were issued but they remained uncomplied. Accordingly the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 7,98,810/-.5. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), besides challenging the assessment on merits, the assessed also challenged the va...

Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Spg. and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant received transport as well as C&F service. The recepient of the said services is liable to service tax in regard to these services.2. Under the impugned order service tax demand has been made for the period Nov'97 to Oct'98. The order reads as under: In view of above discussions, I find that the service tax was correctly chargeable from the consumer of goods transport services and C&F Agents from 16.11.97 to 2.6.98 under Section 73(2) and they are liable to service tax return under Section 71(A) of Act ibid. The appellant failed to do so, the service tax is chargeable to and appellant are liable for penal action under Section 76, 78 and 75A of the Act ibid.3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the identical dispute had come up before this Tribunal in the case of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE and the Tribunal held that a demand under Section 73 against the recepient of service was not sustainable. That order of the Tribunal was upheld...

Sh. V.K. Arora S/O Late Sh. B.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since issue raised in these two applications is common in nature & grounded on almost identical facts, the same are being disposed of by present common order. For sake of convenience, facts will be delineated hereinafter from OA No. 145/2006.2. MA 162/2006 in OA 145/2006 as well as MA No 540/2006 in OA No 669/2006 under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together are allowed.3. Applicants' grievance is that judgment rendered in OA No. 1435/2005 dated 11.11.2005 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in which one of us (Mukesh Kumar Gupta) was party, be reviewed & recalled. Applicants also seek consequential relief. At the outset we may note that though in OA No. 669/2006 in addition to aforesaid relief prayer was made to hold a thorough enquiry into the circumstances which resulted in omission/suppression of material facts before this Tribunal & to take action against the official respondents for the same besides awarding exemplary fine & costs,...

Freightship Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)110ITD377(Delhi)

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, involving exactly identical grounds and issues, passed in Appeal Nos. 134 & 135/05-06/ Commissioner (Appeals)-XIV/Delhi, dated 2-12-2005 were heard together and are being disposed of through this single order for the sake of convenience.2.The identical grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both its appeals are as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 154/254 of the Act because : (i) there was no mistake apparent from record in the order passed under Section 254/143(3) of the Act; (ii) interest under Section 234B could not be charged under Section 154 of the Act since there was no directions by the assessing officer in the original order for charging the interest; (iii) the order against which the rectification ...

Dy. Cit Vs. Himachal Exicom Communication

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT (Appeals) dated 23-1 -2006 for the assessment year 2001 -02, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Appeals) erred in (i) allowing deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, oninterest income on margin money deposited with bank for openingletter of credit and obtaining bank guarantees for business. (ii) the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any ground of the appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Brief facts in this case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of tele-communication equipments. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act @ 30% of the eligible profits. During the course of assessment under Section 143(3), the asses...

ito Vs. Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 27-8-2004 for assessment year 2001-02. The sole ground of appeal relates to the order deleting the addition of Rs. 19,15,950 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessing officer noticed that the assessee company have received share application money amounting to B Rs. 19,15,950 from 18 persons. The necessary details of names, amount, mode of payment as well as details/evidence of investment filed before the assessing officer has been narrated in the assessment order. The assessing officer has observed that in all the cases the investment in share capital has been made in cash, no evidence of source of investment has been filed. In most of the cases details of the employer, nature of profession or business has not been given. The amount invested in the share capital during the year is almost the same as the total income of the investor du...

Asstt. Cit Range-1 Vs. Mohd. Umar Asarafi

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly dated 13-10-2005 for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. (1) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on the facts of the case in quashing the notices issued under Section 148 reiving upon the findings of Bombay High Court in 77 ITR 995. (2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case while emphasizing on the word information used in pre-amended subsection (b) of Section 147 which is not applicable with effect from 1-4-1989. (3) That the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), A Bareilly being erroneous may be cancelled and the order of assessing officer be restored. (4) Any other ground of appeal which may be taken at the time of hearing.3. Rival contentions have been heard and records...

Ravi Kumar Sinha Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8-4-2004 for the assessment year 2002-03, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised : 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX erred in sustaining the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 86,28,750 being waiver of loan granted by M/s. SRF Employee Welfare Company Ltd. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the facts that the waiver of loan by M/s. SRF Employees Welfare Company Ltd. cannot be taxed as an income since there is no waiver of loan by the employer. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in approving the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emit Webb...

Cadbury India Limited and ors. Vs. Neeraj Food Products

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT724; LC2007(2)269; 2007(35)PTC95(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of an interlocutory injunction against the defendant restraining it from using the trademark 'JAMES' or 'JAMES BOND' or any other trademark deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Gems' or using the pillow packs attached as annexure A to the plaint. The plaintiff has also prayed that a further injunction against the defendant restraining him from passing off its goods of the plaintiff, by reproducing in any material form, the copyright in the artistic work of the pillow packs annexed as annexure A to the plaint.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the allegations that the Cadbury India Limited, plaintiff No. 1 began its operation as a trading company in the year 1947. The plaintiff No. 1 was formerly known as Hindustan Cocoa Products Limited by which name it was granted trademark registrations. Th...