Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

ito Vs. Harsh Kumar Sharma

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals filed by the revenue against the respective orders of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, passed in Appeal Nos. 457/05-06, 86/06-07, 454/05-06, 6/06-07, 7/06-07, 453/05-06, 452/05-06, 84/06- 07, 61/06-07 and 62/06-07, dated 10-8-2006 were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order, because the facts and issues involved in the grounds of appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience.2. All the instant assessees were former employees of Reserve Bank of India who took retirement under the Optional Early Retirement Scheme (OERS) meant for the employees who having completed 25 years of service and attained the age of 50 years. The scheme was for the benefit of the employees who opted for retirement from Reserve Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India was to pay ex gratia amount. The same was claimed as exempt by these employees under Section 10(10C) of the Act.3. The assessing officer was of the view that the payment received by the assessees under ...

Space Financial Services Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)165

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 4th Feb., 2005 of the learned CIT(A), The first and sixth grounds of appeal are general in nature.2. The second ground of appeal is against the decision of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,70,70,000 by disallowing the claim of bad debts. The facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of trading investment, financing and bill discounting. During the year the assessee had sold and purchased units of mutual funds and earned dividend and commission as also profit on trading of shares. The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 1,70,70,000, which consisted of debts of Rs. 25,70,000 and Rs. 1,45,00,000 due from Solar Farmachem Ltd. (SFL) are Apollo Steel and Tubes Ltd. (ASTL) respectively. The detailed facts regarding claim of the bad debts of SFL have been discussed by the AO in paras 4.2 and 4.3 of the assessment order dt. 31st March, 2003 which ar...

Food Corpn. of India Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These 4 appeals for financial years 2001-02 to 2004-05 filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals) passed in Appeal Nos. 125 to 128/06-07, dated 18-10-2006 were heard together and are being disposed off through this single order as the facts and issue involved in the grounds of the appeals are identical except variation in the demands, i.e., of Rs. 1,82,349, Rs. 2,53,113, Rs. 1,95,457 and Rs. 2,52,054 raised during financial years 2001-02 to 2004-05 respectively, for the sake of convenience.2. The identical grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in the instant appeals are stated as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order made under Sections 201(1) and 201 (1A) read with Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Tax Deduction at Sources Ward 49(2), New Delhi. 2. That the learned Commissioner has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the proposition that as the st...

Amtek Auto Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)464

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 21st Sept., 2004 passed by learned CIT(A), Panchkula, for the asst. yr.2001-02.2. The first ground of appeal states that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,000 on account of legal and professional charges.3. Briefly stated, facts are that assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of auto components. During the year under consideration the assessee company made payment of Rs. 4,75,000 to IL & FS Merchant Banking Services Ltd., for placement of preference shares of the company and claimed the same as business expenses under the head 'Legal and professional charges'. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain as to why the same should not be disallowed as non-business expenses. The assessee did not file any reply in this regard. The AO, therefore, treated the fees for pla...

Sarla Shreedharan Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 24-3-2005 relating to assessment year 1996-97.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 : Through these grounds the assessee has challenged the validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings.These grounds are as under: 1. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of learned assessing officer in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 vide notice dated 31-3-2003. 2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings and reassessment order even though statutory conditions prescribed under Sections 147 to 151 were not complied with, moreso when reopening was done on the basis of mere change of opinion on the same set of facts. 3. In an...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Hotels Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]309ITR134(Delhi)

ORDER1. These appeals under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') are directed against the common order dated 30th November, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in ITA No. 3673 and 3674/Del/01 for the Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively.2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue questioning the order dated 21st June, 2001 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ['CIT(A)'] deleting the penalty levied on the assessed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years in question.3. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeals on two grounds. The first is that the assessment order indicates no satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that the penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessed. Following the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) which has been ...

Hyundai Corporation Vs. Rajmal Ganna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(35)PTC652(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of is No. 7907/2005 filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an injunction against the defendant prohibiting it from using the trade mark Hyundai in respect of which the plaintiff has asserted exclusive propriety rights.2. M/s Hyundai Corporation is stated to be a corporation which is incorporated under the laws of Korea having its head office at Korea with liaison offices in various countries including India. The Hyundai Corporation, plaintiff herein claims to belong to the internationally famous Hyundai group of companies. Some of the other group companies include the Hyundai Heavy Industries Limited, Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Company Limited. It is contended that several of the Hyundai group companies are actively working in the Indian market and are engaged in the sale of various consumer products falling under various class...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Maruti Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]309ITR138(Delhi)

1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated April 18, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, in I.T.A. No. 3551/Del./2002 for the assessment year 1995-96. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order that there was either concealment of income or inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee.2. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue submits that in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) this Court has taken the view that if the Assessing Officer does not record his satisfaction in the assessment order that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessee the s...

S.P. Constructions Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants have also filed appeals challenging the order of Commissioner of Central Excise made on 22-9-2006. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has demanded service tax as indicated below:Sl. Party Name Appeal Nos. Tax (Rs.)No.1 M/s. N.K. Traders ST/377/2007 417864/-2 M/s. S.S. Electrical ST/409/2007 237426/-3 M/s. Krishna Enterprises ST/410/2007 127927/-4 M/s. S.P. Construction ST/360/2007 172167/- Total Rs. 955384/- Apart from this, he has also imposed penalty on these applicants under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act. He also has charged interest from them at appropriate rate under Section 75.2. All these matters pertain to the period from 2003-05 July 2003 to January 2005. During this period the definition of "Maintenance and repair services" as per the provision of Clause 64 of Section 65 of the Service Tax Act 1984 (sic) (Finance Act, 1994) read as under: Service Tax was leviable on services provided in respect of Maintenance or repair Service w.e.f. 1-7-...

Randhir Singh S/O Late Shri Diwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In present OA, applicant impugns respondents' inaction and the consequent denial of consideration for inclusion in the Select List of Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) for the year 1994 consequent upon revision/modification of the Select List of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary grade) of the CSS for the year 1994.2. Facts in brief are that applicant, who is working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is a member of Grade-I (Under Secretary ) of the CSS, which is one of the Central Civil Service (Group 'A') of the Union of India. Applicant belongs to SC community with an excellent record of service. The service conditions of the members of the CSS are governed by the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 (the Rules) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Central Secretariat Service (Promotion to Grade-I and Selection grade) Regulations, 1964 framed under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Rule...