Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Noida Catering Service Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ62CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order. In the present appeal, the only challenge is regarding imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellants were providing outdoor catering service and Service Tax was levied on outdoor caterer with effect from 10.9.04. In the month of August 2005, summons were issued to the appellant and the appellant immediately got registered as outdoor caterer with the Revenue and also paid the Service Tax of Rs. 4,13,800/- immediately along with interest and also paid amount of Rs. 2000/- as penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 2000/- under Section 77 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 41,300/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act. A penalty of the equal amount of Service Tax was imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act.3. The contention is that penalty under Section 78 only be imposed in case of Service Tax has not been paid by reas...

Lavleen Singhal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)326

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in appeal No. 444/00-01, dt. 18th Sept., 2002, on as many as four grounds. The ground Nos. 3 and 4 are general in nature and need no adjudication from our side. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 involve the issue whether the assessee is liable to pay the tax on the capital gains arising from the sale of land situated in village Roz-ka-Gurjar during the year under reference.2. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the issue involved in these grounds of appeal are that on 3rd Sept., 1984, the assessee purchased a plot of land situated at Qila No. 244, Rakba No. 9190-9, village Roz-ka-Gurjar in Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, Haryana, which has been sold in the year relevant to asst. yr. 1998-99 under consideration for a sum of Rs. 8,19,220. According to assessee no capital gain was leviable on the sale of this land because this was an agricultural land situated beyond 8 kms. from municipal limits and hence the same was not a...

Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)300ITR159(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi dated 27.5.2004 and the only issue raised therein relates to the addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of interest income on investment made by the assessee in the debentures.2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing components for car air conditioners. A return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.10.2001 declaring a total loss of Rs. 37,05,627/-. In the audited financial statements filed alongwith the said return, a following note was appended by the auditors: Revenue arising out of interest on debentures of Rs. 20,00,000/- of a private limited company is not recognized as income as there is significant uncertainty of collectibility.3. Keeping in view the aforesaid note of the auditors, the assessee was called upon by the AO during the course as...

ito Vs. Monnet Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order dated 24-6-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi for assessment year 1996-97. The first ground of appeal states that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of a sum of Rs. 5,66,79,270 as a revenue expenditure in connection with the setting of sugar unit at Muzaffarnagar (U.P.).2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company had set up Ferroalloys manufacturing plant in Raipur in 1991. It was also engaged in the trading business of Ferro-Alloys. In the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 it set up a sugar manufacturing project at Unn, District Muzaffarnagar with an installed capacity of 2500 TCD. It was claimed that this project started production in the month of March, 2006. The project cost stated by the assessee was Rs. 56.74 crores which was raised by way of term loans, right and public issue, etc. It was contended by ...

Eastman Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)798

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee against two separate orders of learned CIT(A)-Xm, New Delhi dt. 20th Sept., 2006 for asst. yrs.2001-02 and 2003-04 involve some common issues and the same, therefore, are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we shall take up the assessee's appeal for asst. yr. 2001-02 being ITA No. 3883/Del/2006 wherein the only issue involved relating to the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC is raised in the following grounds: 1. (a) That the learned CIT(A) has without understanding the issue raised by the appellant sustained the order of the learned AO by holding that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. (b) The ground that was raised before the learned CIT(A) was that only the profit on transfer of DEPB/DFRC should have been excluded while computing the 'profits of business' as per Expln. (baa) to Section 80HHC r/w Section 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Act and...

Sunrider Corporation Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)46; 2007(35)PTC388(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition, the following two questions arise for consideration:1) Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks has the power to extend the time for filing of the evidence affidavit in support of an opposition beyond the maximum period of three months prescribed under Rule 50(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 ?2) Whether the non-filing of the evidence affidavit within the prescribed time, ipso facto, means that an opposition to a trade mark application would be deemed to have been abandoned in terms of the provisions of Rule 50(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 ?2. These questions arise in respect of an application for registration of the trade mark 'SUNERGY' in Class-3 filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposition to the same filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. On 14.06.1995, the petitioner (Sunrider Corporation) filed an application for registration of its trade mark 'SUNERGY' in Class-3. On 21.02.2001, the same was advertised in the Trade Marks Jou...

Maninder Pal Singh Kohli Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ178

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition seeks the review of the judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2007 by which this Court had upheld the findings recorded by the Extradition Magistrate under Section 7(4) of the Extradition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as being prima facie in nature. 2. The learned Counsel for the review petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3765/2007 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the review petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted the filing of the review petition against the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2007. thereforee, it would be appropriate to extract the order dated 20th July 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw th...

Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR394(Delhi); 2007(98)DRJ735

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I proceed to dispose of the objections filed by the parties before me to the Arbitral Award dated 31.10.1988, made by the sole Arbitrator, Shri J.P. Singhal.2. Vide his letter dated 5th December 1988, the learned Arbitrator had filed the award in Court to be made a 'Rule' of the Court. Both the parties to the award, i.e., the claimant and the respondent before the Arbitrator filed their objections on 15.2.1989 (registered as I.A. No. 1961/1989) and 7.2.1989 (registered as I.A. No. 2039/1989) respectively.3. Brief facts leading to the passing of the award are that Union of India (referred to as 'respondent' hereinafter) had invited tender for the work of construction of flyover at Lodhi Hotel inter-section, New Delhi at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,04,66,773/-. Work contract was awarded to M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd. (referred to as the 'Claimant' hereinafter) for Rs. 2,48,85,564/- to be completed within a period of 16 months starting 1.1.19...

Texmaco Ltc. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)1CompLJ292(Del); [2008]83SCL215(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 24.05.2005 passed by the learned trial court. 2. The brief facts necessary to decide this present petition are that the Petitioner company acquired the proprietary rights in respect of M/s. Birla Mills as well as the latter's housing colonies by virtue of a scheme of compromise and arrangement in 1983. M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills had installed a mill in Delhi known as Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mill located at Kamla Nagar. The mill had more than 3000 employees and had 900 quarters in its nearby vicinity. The quarters provided accommodation to the employees. The quarters/residential colonies are popularly known as New Birla lines, Old Birla lines, Shivaji Lines, Khilonawala Bagh etc. They were allotted by the company to its employees on license basis. The allotments were allegedly made with the terms and conditions that the employee would be entitled to reside in the quarter...

Manju Yadav Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ312

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present petition seeks a quashing order, under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereafter 'the Code') in respect of criminal proceedings, filed by the Registrar of Companies.2. The petitioner avers and it is so contended by his counsel, that the prosecution for commission of offences is not maintainable on two counts. One, the allegation about violation of Section 62 does not result in commission of an offence, since that provision relates to a civil wrong; Two, that the prosecution as far as the offence under Section 68, Companies Act, is concerned, is not maintainable, because no sanction was obtained for the purpose. Reliance was placed upon the decision reported as Rajeev Shukla v. Registrar of Companies 135 (2006) DLT 599. In that decision, the court held as follows:Registrar of Companies has filed a criminal complaint under Section 62 read with Section 68 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') against the petitioner, which is ...