Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Lalit Goel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(216)ELT673(Del)

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner faces prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act for alleged evasion of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 1.27 crores. 2. The petitioner, as proprietor of M/s Pioneer Soap and Chemicals, imported Crude Palm Oil (non-edible grade) for manufacture of washing soap at concessional rate of customs duty during the period of 13th January, 2005 to 11th August, 2005 against 6 bills of entry. He thus against 65% of normal customs duty, while seeking exemption in respect of six consignments of imported raw material, deposited in cash duty at concessional rate of 20% and out of balance of 45%, 20% was secured by FDR and the rest of 25% by furnishing bonds. The petitioner in all imported consignment to the extent of 1371.878 MT during the said period availing benefit of payment of only part of duty. Against six bills of entry, bonds against four bills of entry were later discharged and FDRs returned to the petitioner. 3. According to the prosecution, the pet...

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shri R.K. T ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)5CompLJ514(Del)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present reference has been made to this Court under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Chapter 7-F of the Delhi High Court Rules.2. Notice of this reference was issued to the Respondents for 29th November, 2005. On that date counsel for the Respondent had put in his appearance and matter was adjourned for 4th April, 2006 for final hearing.3. On 4th April, 2006, none appeared for the Respondent and the matter was posted for final hearing for 9th October, 2006.4. On 16th July, 2007, only counsel for Union of India-Respondent No. 2 appeared whereas, there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, R.K. Tayal and arguments were heard. 5. As per statement of the case, Sh. Thampy Mathews, DGM, Industrial Investment Bank of India, New Delhi filed a complaint against Respondent No. 1. The complainant-bank had sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 630 lacs to M/s Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. Sonipat, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Company) ...

Virender Nanda @ Dimple Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ403

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, the above two appeals filed by appellants Virender Nanda @ Dimple and Jupinder Singh are being decided. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28th August, 2002 held the appellant Virender Nanda guilty under Section 354 IPC and under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the appellant Jupinder Singh guilty under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Vide order dated 29th August, 2007, he sentenced them both to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for two years. Rs. 10,000- out of the fine, if realised, was also directed to be be paid to the victim.2. The facts as they unfold from the prosecution's case may be noticed. The complainant in this case is 'AN', mother of the prosecutrix, a minor girl of six years hereinafter referred to as 'N'. The father of the prosecutrix is referred to as 'SN'. He runs a cloth shop. On 18th June, 2001, 'N' went looking for Narender, her Mama/Maternal Uncle. While lookin...

Ms. Urvashi Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Smt. Suraj Kumari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ246

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide CRP No. 1150/2003 petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.9.2003 dismissing an application dated 25.2.2002 filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC praying that Kushagr Ansal, grandson of deceased defendant No. 1 be brought on record as a defendant. I note that vide said application prayer was also made to condone the delay in filing the said application. 2. The application of the petitioner has been dismissed holding that the suit stood abated and no Explanationn was forthcoming justifying delay to be condoned. It has been held that there has been an inordinate delay in seeking impleadment of Kushagr Ansal as a legal representative of deceased defendant No. 1. 3. Order challenged in CRP No. 1154/2003 is an order of even date dismissing application dated 19.2.2001 filed by the petitioners to implead the 6th natural legal heir of deceased defendant No. 1. Reason thereof is that the said natural legal heir had admitted that the deceased had e...

Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ185

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2000 seeks to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Kakardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 161 of 1993, arising out of F.I.R. No. 427 of 1991, registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura, whereby the learned judge vide her judgment dated 11.12.2000 has held the appellants, Ram Kumar and Rambir @ Lilu, guilty for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Further vide her orders dated 11.12.2000 and 14.12.2000, has sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for five months each under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment under challenge are as under:At about 11:30 AM information was received at the police station Bhajan Pura about some incident at House No. C-71/12, Gali No. 1, Bhajan Pura on which Asstt. Sub Inspector on emergency duty along with ...

Travel Promotion Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Classic Motors Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is engaged in the business of travel promotion and had given its vehicle for repairs to the respondent. Respondent raised a bill of Rs. 29,821 on 22nd December, 1996. Appellant asked for certain rectification of the bill as it pointed out certain discrepancies, for instance parking charges at Rs. 200 were charged instead of Rs. 100 per day. Instead of rectifying further bill was raised for Rs. 44,809.49 vide letter 20th March, 1997. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. 2. Vide impugned order dated 23rd May, 2003, District Forum dismissed the complaint merely on the ground that when he asked the Counsel for the appellant he is ready to pay Rs. 29,821 with interest and take delivery, he replied in negative. 3. It is a very sad case as it has suffered inordinate and highly protracted litigation for 10 long years. The appellant gave the car for repairs and the respondent retained the car for such a long...

Saraswati Holding Corporation Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)334

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 22nd Nov., 2004 of the learned CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr.2000-01.2.1 The assessee is a company, which has been incorporated in Mauritius and holds the tax residence certificate of Mauritius. It was incorporated with the purpose of carrying on business of dealing and making investment in shares and securities etc. For the purpose of doing business in India, the assessee had applied to the RBI for giving permission to invest money in Indian capital market as an 'overseas corporate body' in the Portfolio Investments Scheme through Punjab National Bank, ECE House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and the RBI had given the said permission to the appellant company vide its letter dt. 27th Nov., 1995.2.2 The assessee made investments in Indian capital market and derived income in the form of short-term/long-term capital gains. According to the assessee the said transactions are covered by the provisions of Double Taxation Avoi...

Bhp Minerals International Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals, one filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 18/03-04, dated 27-10-2003 and the other filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No.12/02-03, dated 31-10-2002 were heard together and are being disposed off by this single order for the sake of convenience because the issue involved in both the appeals i.e. whether the assessee is entitled to claim expenditure aggregating to Rs. 5,20,22,092 in assessment year 2000-01 and Rs. 5,31,22,080 in assessment year 1999-2000 is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is identical.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed a return of income for assessment year 2000-01 declaring loss of Rs. 5,20,22,092 and a loss of Rs. 5,31,22,080 in assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee company is engaged in the business of the primary purpose grass roots exploration ...

Ge Capital Transportation Vs. Asstt. Cit, Special Range 2

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113ITD22(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) XIV, New Delhi, dated 20-3-2002.2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in this appeal is general seeking no specific decision from us.3. In ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the action of the Learned CLT(A) in upholding the order of the assessing officer restricting its claim for depreciation in respect of commercial vehicles given on lease to Rs. 8,51,75,155 (@ 25 per cent) as against Rs. 13,62,80,248 (@ 40 per cent) claimed by the assessee.4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed that a similar issue was decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 holding that it is the end user of the specified asset which is relevant for determining the rate of depreciation. The matter, therefore, was remanded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court with a direction that depreciation at high...

Virtual Software and Training (P) Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)920

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18-1-2005 relating to assessment year 2001-02.2. Shri K. Sampath and Shri L.K. Paonam, Advocates along with Shri VijayGupta, Finance Manager appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Smt. Purnima Singh CIT DR along with Shri L.M. Pandey Sr. DR represented the revenue.3. The assessee has taken as many as 13 grounds in this appeal, out of which ground Nos. 1 to 10 are directed against the findings of assessing officer and that of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in working out the taxable short-term capital gain under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 3,14,58,832. Ground Nos. 11 & 12 challenge the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. These grounds have to be dealt with separately. Ground No. 13 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.4. Ground Nos. 1 to 10: These grounds relate to the addition made on account of short-term cap...