Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Cce Vs. Polyplex Corporation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC159

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby, it has been directed that the respondents are entitled for interest from the date of the Tribunal's order.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the show cause notices dated 22.7.99 and 29.7.99 were issued proposing to disallow Modvat credit of Rs. 3,66,328/- on the ground that the credit is not available to the respondents in respect of the goods received back by them from their customers. Vide Order-in-Original dated 16.12.99, the Dy. Commissioner disallowed the credit of Rs. 3,66,328 - and imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest. During the year 1999-2000, the respondents tiled refunds/rebate claims before the Dy.Commissioner, Kanpur in other cases. By Adjudication Orders dated 14.3.2000, 8.10.2000 and 21.11.2000, the Dy. Commissioner allowed the refund claims but the entire amount of Rs. 8,27,190/- was adjusted against the demand as confirmed by the Adjudication Or...

R.R. Construction Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. An obvious mistake has crept in, in the order dt. 24.7.07, by which it was directed that the applicant should deposit Rs. 3,50,000 (rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) @ Rs. 100/- per day being penalty imposed under Section 76 for a period of about 11 months. The said amount payable would be about Rs. 35,000/- but was typed as Rs. 3,50,000/- in the stay order. The words Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. three lakhs and fifty thousand only) are, therefore, ordered to be substituted by the words "Rs. 35,000/-(rupees thirty five thousand only). The order stands rectified accordingly. The time to make the deposit of Rs. 35,000/- is extended by two weeks. This application stands disposed of accordingly. To come up for reporting compliance on 22.10.07....

Dharmender S/O Shri Virender Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A general Notification had been published in Dainik Punjab Kesri, dated 06.03.1999 at the instance of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, inviting response from qualified persons for appointment to the post of Fire Operator under the Delhi Fire Service.Minimum qualifications prescribed were pass in matriculation and possession of Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License. The applicant, evidently, had responded to the above and it is submitted that he had been directed to undergo a selection process consisting of written, physical, and practical tests. A select list of candidates appeared in Nav Bharat Times dated 13.10.2001 consisting of 149 persons. There were 35 numbers listed whose results had been withheld. Applicant finding that he was one of them, had taken further steps to get his applications rectified, and he stood cleared as there is no dispute that he was one of the persons, who had been notified as selected. A copy of the result notice is marked as Annexure A-4/a...

Krishan Kumar Rajput S/O Shri Vs. Shri Pradipto Ghosh, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This contempt petition arises from OA 2064/2005. The applicants were casual labourer engaged by the respondents and in the matter of their regularization of service, an application (OA 3097/2003) came to be filed. The same had been disposed of with certain observations. Later on, when there were definite steps on the part of the respondents for hiring of services of a Contractor evidenced by Annexure-A dated 12.7.2005, raising various contentions, OA 2064/2005 had come to be filed. Notice had been issued but on the date of posting in spite of receipt of notice, there was no appearance for respondents. Again, on 05.10.2005, taking notice of the above, the O.A. was adjourned to 21.11.2005 but the Tribunal was also inclined to pass an order to the following effect: Till then respondents are directed to re-engage the applicants as per Annexure-A.2. The applicants submit that they had gone to the respondents and requested for engagement, but highlighting the presence of the impugned ord...

inrays Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC67

1. The appellant is M/s. Inrays through Mr. B.S. Kumar. The 1st respondent is the State Bank of India and the 2nd respondent is Mr.Gurnam Singh, the auction purchaser. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Tribunal below in MA No. 71/2004 arising out of O.A. No. 757/2000. There, M/s. Inrays figured as applicant/defendant No. 1/JD No. 1 and Mr. B.S. Kumar as applicant No.2/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal below dismissed their application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and recovery certificate dated 24.6.2004 passed in OA No. 757/ 2000. In prayer, however, the appellant has sought the setting aside of the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 as well as the order of the Recovery Officer dated 27.9.2005 (whereby the auction sale was confirmed).2. The relevant facts may be stated briefly. The State Bank of India, respondent-Bank herein filed recovery suit before the Senior Sub-Judge, Faridabad for recove...

ito Vs. Sunil Mittal

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) XXII, New Delhi dated 9-7-2004.2. The only issue in appeal is regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 6,00,000 being amount received as gift from one Shri Raman Kumar.3. During the year the assessee was stated to have received a gift of Rs. 6 lakhs from Mr. Raman Kumar. The gift deed was executed on 16-1-2000 which was filed along with a photocopy of affidavit of the donor. The assessee also filed copy of bank account of donor. The gift was received by two cheques of Rs. 3 lakhs each dated 5-7-2000 and 24-7-2000 drawn on Vijay Bank, Bhorgarh, Delhi. The assessing officer recorded the statement of Mr. Raman Kumar, donor as well as Mr. Sunil Mittal donee, the assessee. Mr. Raman Kumar in his statement before the assessing officer stated that Mr. Sunil Mittal, donee had helped him in various times. At one time he met with an accident when nobody came to help him, Mr. Sunil Mittal the assessee helped him ...

M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of I. Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are appeals filed by the assessee and they are directed against two separate orders of CIT (A) dated 21.12.2006 for assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Grounds of appeal read as under: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the order dated 28.02.06 passed by the AO Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in not holding that the impugned order dated 28.02.06 is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed since the initiation of the reassessment proceedings was based on a mere change of opinion. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in not holding that the impugned order dated 28.02.06 is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed since the proceedings Under Section 147 of the Act were initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment...

Handsome Investments (P) Ltd. and Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)155

1. All these appeals by the assessees in the cases of Fine Investments (P) Ltd. and Handsome Investments (P) Ltd. are directed against orders of learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad. The cross-appeals by assessee as well as by Revenue in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. are arising out of the orders of learned CIT(A)-r, New Delhi dt. 15th Dec, 2003. Since the issues in all these appeals are inter-related all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The primary issue to be decided is whether the appellants Fine Investments (P) Ltd. and Handsome Investments (P) Ltd. should be treated as merely paper or dummy entities and are conduits of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. To understand the factual position in all the appeals, the brief facts are narrated herein.3. Fine Investments (P) Ltd. ("FIPL") was incorporated on 20th Oct., 1989 (during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1990-91) with the object of carrying on business of an investment company. FIPL is an investment ...

Hotel Scopevista Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders dated 28-10-2005 of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2006-07. As the issue raised is common, all these appeals are being disposed of by a single consolidated order. The only issue raised which is common in all these appeals is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was justified legally to direct the assessee to deduct tax at source in respect of payments made to M/s. Project Systems International Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'PSIL') the foreign contractor.2. The facts of the case in brief are that that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of operating and maintaining hotels was constructing Lodhi Hotel at New Delhi. For this purpose, the assessee had entered into an agreement dated 14-2-2003 with PSIL under which the latter was required to render project management services in relation to construction of the said hotel. The various ser...

Prem Kumar Vs. Indian Road Construction Company Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ546

Hima Kohli, J.1. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of both, the writ petition and the contempt petition. For the sake of convenience, facts of WP(C) No. 5023/1999 are taken note of.2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, praying inter alia, amongst others, for issuance of writ of certiorari, for quashing the letters dated 16th April, 1999 and 29th June, 1999, issued by respondents, Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.R.C.C.') calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 75,829.80 paise purportedly released as excess advance to the petitioner on account of foreign tour settlement claim towards Travel allowance/Dearness allowance, and for quashing a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of I.R.C.C.L. in their meeting held on 28th June, 1999, making the instructions issued by Department of Public Enterprises (for short 'DPE') dated 20th September, 1995 enforceable from the date of issue of the Office Memorand...