Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi dated 25-4-2006. In ground Nos.1 and 2 the assessee challenges validity of assumption of jurisdiction for framing reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act Income Tax Act. In ground Nos. 3 to 3.5 the assessee challenges manner of computing book profit under Section 115 JB whereby the action of assessing officer in computing profit of the unit eligible for exemption under Section 10A is challenged.2. The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of optical/magnetic storage media products, viz,, CDs and floppies. The appellant is eligible for deduction under Section 10A/ 10B of the Income-tax Act Income Tax Act for its100 per cent EOU units. For the relevant previous year the return of the appellant was filed on declaring loss of Rs. 8,73,72,570 under the normal provisions of the Act and at book p...

Excel Cardamom Company Vs. the Spices Trading Corporation Ltd. and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2007)BC419; 2007BusLR131(Del); 2007(97)DRJ257; (2008)149PLR44

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,22,000/- for recovery of principal amount, interest and damages. The plaintiff claims to be a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of wholesale kirana merchant and commission agents dealing in various kinds of spices. The suit has been instituted through its partner Sh. S.K. Gupta. Defendant No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking while defendant No. 2 is its Assistant Marketing Manager.2. In the beginning of January, 1989 the plaintiff claims to have learned that the defendants were looking for a purchaser of cloves and an offer was thus made vide letter dated 03.01.1989 to the defendants for purchase of the entire quantity of cloves available with the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) at the price to be charged by the STC plus a commission of Rs. 2 per kg for the defendants. This amount of Rs. 2 was in addition to the expenses on account of sales tax, octroi and transport. In pursu...

Pramod Girl Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ576

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner questioning the order of detention dated 18th September, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police against the petitioner.2. The Commissioner of police passed the detention order against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act for a period of one year. This order was executed on 19th September 2006 and the petitioner was detained pursuant thereto and it is not in dispute that the period of more than 10 months is already over and the substantial part of the detention period has been served by the petitioner.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while she had certain other pleas in respect of the delay by all the authorities, however, she will confine her petition to the plea of delay in disposal of the representation by the Lt. Governor by order dated 22nd June, 2007. The counter affidavit explains that the date by which the comments of all concerned authorities reached the Lt. Go...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri. Ashok Khetrapal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)576; [2007]294ITR143(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding deletion of an addition totaling Rs. 2,23,08,152/- made on the basis of the report of valuation cell of department of Revenue on account of unexplained investment in the properties of the assessed.2. On 17th November, 2000, a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') was conducted in the case of M/s. Pashupatinath Jee Tours and Travels at its business and residential premises of its partners and their relatives. The assessed is a partner of this firm and during the course of search of his residence B-174, East of Kailash, New Delhi, some papers of properties in which assessed had made investments were found. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Valuation Officer and treated the difference between the valuation as per Departmental Valuation Officer's report and the declared value of the properties as assessed's undisclosed income for the assessment yea...

Rajesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC706

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he did not accept the cancellation report filed by the police in respect of the case arising out of FIR No. 793/2002 under Section 304-B IPC registered at Police Station Patel Nagar. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was of the opinion that although the offence under Section 304-B IPC was not made out, there was sufficient material on the judicial file to take cognizance of an offence under Section 306 IPC as the deceased Geeta Rani was continuously subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. Accordingly, he directed the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the accused persons, namely, Mehar Singh (father-in-law of the deceased), Rajesh Kumar (husband of the deceased) and Smt. Krishna (mother-in-law of the deceased). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.12.2002 one Dharambir @ Sonu informed Police Station Patel Nagar over...

Ram Kishore Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ445

S. Muralidhar, J.Introduction1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the parents of young children who died in tragic circumstances, not of their own creation. Ram Kishore, a vegetable vendor, has filed Writ Petition (C) No. 4328 of 2001 claiming compensation from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') for the death of his 11-year old son Mahesh studying in Class IV on 13.5.2000. Mahesh died instantaneously when the wall of a municipal lavatory maintained by the MCD collapsed on him while he was easing himself. The second petition W.P. (C) No. 6360 of 2002 is by Mohd. Yasheen, a tailor, claiming compensation from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the death on 5.5.2002 of his 15 - year old son Beeru in the bathing facility at Sur Ghat on the banks of the river Yamuna maintained by the DDA. Beeru's body got entangled in an uncovered outlet drain pipe due to a sudden current of water and was ultimately found near the pipes sluice valve nearly thirty feet away from the m...

Smt. Sudharshan Marwah Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ152; 2008(2)SLJ85(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alias for a writ of mandamus for setting aside the selection grade list approved by respondent No. 2 dated 3rd December, 1976, and for quashing the order of respondent No. 2 dated 21st August, 1978 and for restoring the seniority of the petitioner at S. No. 2, i.e. next to the Head Mistress, and thus senior to respondent No. 4, Ms. Nisha Rani.2. The limited question that arises for adjudication in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4 or not, both working as teachers in respondent No. 3 at the time of institution of the writ petition. It may be relevant to note that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner retired from service on 13th September, 2003 and respondent No. 4 expired on 19th September, 2005, leaving behind her legal heirs, who were imp leaded in her place vide order dated 3rd May, 2006.3. Brief facts relevant to decide the present ...

Pandit Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR205(Delhi); 2007(98)DRJ96

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and in pursuance to an invitation for tender floated by respondent No. 1 for work of construction of shopping centre at New Rajinder Nagar, a tender bid was submitted. The tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted in terms of the letter dated 30.11.1990 of respondent No. 1/DDA at a tendered cost of Rs. 1,24,75,860/- and an agreement was executed between the parties dated 12.12.1990. The stipulated date of completion was 9.3.1992 (15 months). The work was, however, completed only in late April, 1998 and the completion certificate was issued on 28.4.1998. The petitioner blames respondent No. 1/DDA for the same.2. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the disputes about payment between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the petitioner issued a notice dated 9.7.2001 to the Chief Engineer of respondent No. 1 for appointment of an arbitrator and in view of the failure to do so, filed a Suit No. AA No....

Secure Meters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR571

1. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties. Whereas Revenue also filed application for stay of operation of the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the amount of penalty.2. The demand is confirmed after treating the royalty as scientific and technical consultancy service. The contention of the applicant is that after 10-9-04 the applicants are paying Service Tax under 'intellectual property service'. The applicant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 291 to submit that royalty is not covered under the technical consultancy service. In view of the above decision, the pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties are waived for hearing of the appeal. SPs filed by applicants are allowed.2.1 The application filed by the Revenue is only against the stay of the operation of the impugned order whereby penalty is reduced.Therefore, w...

Gold Line Bath Fixtures (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC307

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 30.11.2004, upholding the order-in-original by which it was held that, modvat credit of Rs. 1,37,741/- on capital goods was not admissible to the appellant in the absence of a proper duty paying document, namely bill of entry, and imposing a reduced penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. The appellant were engaged in the manufacture of taps and cocks and on scrutiny of the RT-12 returns, it appeared to the Revenue that modvat credit was taken on the capital goods. The appellant was asked to submit all modvatable invoices pertaining to the RT-12 returns, which were not submitted and therefore, show cause notice was issued on 24.9.1997 for recovery of the wrongly availed modvat credit and imposition of penalty.3. During the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, the authorized representative of the department who appeared on 22.2.2000 submitted photo copies of two letters both dated 29.9.1997 along with photo c...