Delhi Court June 2007 Judgments

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC110

1. The issue raised in these three appeals filed by M/s Balkrishana Industries Ltd. is the same. Therefore, we have called Appeal No.E/669/06 also today even though only the other two appeals are listed for hearing today. As the issue involved is the same, all the appeals shall remain disposed of under this common order.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of tyres, more specifically, tyres for earth movers and other industrial equipments, for exports. While it manufactures the tyres in its factory, the inner tubes and flaps for the tyres are procured from outside. Tyres are cleared from the factory after fixing the inner tubes and flaps into/on to the tyres.3. Bulk of the produce of the appellant is exported and the appellant is entitled to rebate of excise duty paid on the tyres. The appellant is also availing of credit of duty on the inputs going into the manufacture of the tyres including on the inner tubes and flaps procured from other manufacturers.4. The dispute raised is as to w...

Universal Cylinders Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR628

2. The impugned order has imposed service tax by treating reconditioning as repair-cum-maintenance. The submission of the ld.Consultant is that reconditioning was included only with effect from 2005 and the demand is for an earlier period. It is also being pointed out that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 60,000/- out of the demand of about Rs. 2.30 lakhs.3. A perusal of the definition of the service during the relevant period shows that reconditioning was not treated as repair cum maintenance during that period. The appellant has a strong, prima facie, case on merits. In view of this, requirement for further pre-deposit is waived and stay application is allowed....

Vestas Rrb India Ltd. Vs. Additional Cit, Range 17

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both these appeals are filed by the assessee. They are directed against consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-11-2003 in respect of assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03. The only grievance of the assessee in the present appeals is regarding reduction of depreciation and expenses incurred for repair and maintenance of Wind Electric Generators (WEG) from the eligible profit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA. The assessee is earning income from electricity generated from WEG and claimed deduction under Section 80-1A on such income without deducting any expenditure there from contending that these WEGs were primarily installed for demonstration and demonstrative activity being in the nature of business promotion was the activity relating to sale of WEG and expenses incurred thereon should be treated to be expenses relating to sale of WEG and it cannot be related to the electricity generation activity. According to the assessee no expenditure whatsoever was...

ito Vs. Amitabh Singh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi, passed on 1-8-2006. The corresponding assessment order was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 37(1), New Delhi, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 17-3-2006. The only ground taken by the revenue in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 32.50 lakhs made by the assessing officer on account of short-term capital gain by holding that the impugned amount was not assessable under any head of income. This also mentioned that he erred in holding that there was no transfer contrary to the fact that the assessee C retired from the partnership firm and the value of the goodwill was transferred and credited to his capital account.2. In the assessment order, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 32.50 lakhs was credited in the capital account of the assessee on 31-5-2002 on account of goodwill of the firm. Th...

Herbert Smith, Singapore Firm Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)112ITD143(Delhi)

1. This appeal emanates from the order of the CIT(Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi, passed on 14.1.2004. The assessee has taken six substantive grounds in the appeal, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: 1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Herbert Smith Singapore Firm (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") respectfully submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Learned CIT(A)") has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order, dated 20 October, 2003, passed by Learned Deputy Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2). 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the Learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in fact, in holding that the learned Deputy Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2) was justified in rejecting the Appellant's application under Section 154 of the Income-tax ...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT200; 2007(97)DRJ59

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal by the Union of India is directed against a judgment dated 4.12.2000 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5274 of 2000 filed by the Respondents 1 to 8. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has directed the Respondent sugar producers to pay interest on the excess realisation over the levy price of sugar for the season 1982-83 from 20.2.1996 and not from the actual date of such realisation. This appeal by the Union of India is limited to the extent that the interest should have, in terms of the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act ('LSPEF Act') 1984, been directed to be paid from the date of actual realisation of the excess amounts.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that for the sugar season 1982-83 the Central Government issued a notification on 27.1.1983 fixing the levy price of sugar at Rs. 277.41 per quintal in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3)(C) of the Essential Commo...

Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT226; 2007(97)DRJ38

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Writ Petition (C) No. 2472 of 1987 has been filed by the Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti and seven others challenging an order dated 7.4.1986 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The companion Writ Petition (C) No. 1689 of 1988 has been filed by Smt. Aruna Rani and 12 others challenging an order passed on 18.5.1987 by the Financial Commissioner dismissing Case No. 119/1986, a revision petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Holdings Act'). By the impugned order the Financial Commissioner affirmed the order dated 7.4.1986 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which order has been challenged by the Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti in the first mentioned petition.2. The Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner society') claims to be a society of about 1000 plot holders, including petitioners No. 2 to 8 in the first petition, who p...

Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vasutech Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi99; I(2008)BC12; 2007(97)DRJ304

S. Muralidhar, J. CM No. 8408/2007Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.FAO (OS) No. 206 of 2007 and CM 8407/2007 1. This appeal by the defendants is against an order dated 28.3.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the Original Side granting an ad interim ex parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) i.e. I.A.No. 3582/2007 in CS (OS) No. 570/2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective status in the suit.Background Facts2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff Company, M/s.Vasutech Ltd. having its registered office at Rewari, Haryana, approached the defendant No. 1 Company, registered in Delhi, for loans for funding its capital requirements for development of a chip called Versatile Component Unit (VCU). Defendant No. 1, is stated to have advanced amounts from time to time to the tune of Rs. 52.08 crore...

National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT6

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. Duty demand has been raised by treating "Technical Know-how" transfer as attracting service tax under the heading "Consulting". The submission raised by the learned Consultant is that know-how transfer is sale of intellectual property and not the rendering of service.2. We find the appellant's contention goes to the root of the case and has not been considered properly by the lower authorities. In view of this, the case is required to go back to the original authority to consider the issue of taxability.3. In view of that is stated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh decision on merits. The appeal and stay application are disposed of in the above terms....

Shobha Gupta Vs. Rajesh Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT389; 2007(96)DRJ652

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi in HMA No. 58 of 583 of 2003. By the impugned judgment the learned ADJ dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce filed against the respondent on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The ground for dismissal was that the appellant had not been able to produce before the Trial Court proof of her earlier marriage with one Shri Kailash Jain having been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.2. It is the appellant's case that she and Respondent No. 1 herein were married on 24.1.1985 at Delhi. A male child Ravi Gupta was born on 4.1.1986. The appellant does admit that she was earlier married to one Shri Kailash Jain and had a daughter Sonia and a son Ashish from the said marriage. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, she and Shri Kailash Jain were divorced.3. The appellant's petition for divorce was based on three...