Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Kamboj Ultra-sound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. New India ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant-company against insurance cover for C.T. Scanner compensation of Rs. 15,21,651 with 20% interest has been claimed from the OP-Insurance Company. 2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased CT MAX 640 whole Body CT Scanner with 8x10 multi format camera, voltage stabilizer, lead glass and frame for lead class. From M/s. Wipro G.E. Medical system Ltd., Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 65,75,000 and installed the aforesaid machine on 25.11.1995 at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Plot No. 2, Institutional Area, Sector -3, Rohini , Delhi. M/s. Wipro G.E. gave warranty for the aforesaid machine w.e.f. 25.11.1995 to 24.11.1996. The complainant agreed to get this machine insured through OP No. 1. OP issued policy No. 4432010136017 dated 9.1.1997 to 8.1.1998. The OP No. 3 charged Rs. 86,250 as premium on the basis of replacement value. On 26.5.1997 a part called coupling between se...

J.K. Transport Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ67CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The appellant filed these appeals against impugned orders whereby penalties imposed under the Service Tax were enhanced by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The brief facts of the case are that show-cause notices were issued to the appellant raised demand of Service tax and for imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant filed appeals against the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 15.4.2005 upheld the amount of Service Tax, however, set aside the penalty on the ground that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that they were not covered under the Cargo Handling Agent. Against the order in appeal, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.4. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed the order passed by the adjudicating authority in resp...

Apex Colour Lab and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ68CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Common issue involved in these applications and therefore all are taken up together for disposal.2. The revenue filed these applications for rectification of mistake of the Final Orders passed by the Tribunal. In these cases, Commissioner passed review order under Section 84(I) of the Finance Act 1994. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the same were decided without giving opportunity of personal hearing and remanded back to the Commissioner for denovo decision after giving proper opportunity of personal hearing. In the instant applications, it is contended that in terms of Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994, the Commissioner is empowered to pass order reviewing the order of adjudicating authority subordinate to him and no order shall be passed after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. It is contended that the said period of two years have already been expired and therefore the Commissioner cannot pass any revi...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. R.P. Singh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)880

1. The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee arise out of CIT(A)'s order dt. 29th Dec., 2003 passed under Section 158BD/158BC of the IT Act, relating to the block period 1st April, 1989 to 2nd Nov., 1999.2. Shri M.P. Singh senior Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue whereas Shri Rohit Jain, chartered accountant along with Shri Ashutosh Jain, chartered accountant appeared on behalf of the assessee.3. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the assessee has taken legal grounds which challenge the very validity of the block assessment order and therefore these grounds may be disposed of first. After hearing the learned representatives of the parties and on going through the grounds of appeal taken in cross-objections, we consider it proper to decide the grounds taken by the assessee in the cross-objection. These grounds are as under: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that...

Orient Craft Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. We find it expedient to dispose of both these appeals by way of a common order. The two appeals are by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred of as 'Commissioner') under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') relating to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02.The Commissioner has passed similarly worded orders whereby the assessment orders passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned years have been cancelled since, in his opinion, they were erroneous, insofar as it were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has held that the assessing officer shall pass fresh orders of assessment. Since the fact situation is identical for the two years, we may refer to assessment year 2000-01 for details. The issue in dispute relates to the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. In this regard, the pertinent facts are that the asse...

Asstt. Cit Vs. K.L. Jolly and Sons

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals and cross-objections involving common issues and similar facts are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Shri Y.K Kapur and Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocates appeared for the assessees whereas Shri Purushottam Tripuri, Senior Departmental Representative represented the revenue.3. In IT(SS) A. No. 132/Delhi/2004 the revenue has taken two grounds which are as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in (1) deleting addition on account of gift of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 1,00,000 being 10 per cent premium on the gift ignoring that the alleged donor wasnot able to tell the details of Jolly Family at the time of recording of his statement. (2) deleting the addition in respect of rental income, maintaining that the same is assessable in the hands of Mrs. Krishna Jolly, ignoring that entireinvestment in the impugned property was made by M/s. K.L. Jolly & Sons (HUF).4. In IT (SS) A. No. 133/Delhi/2...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Interra Software (India) (P) Ltd ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)982

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt.25th July, 2005 for the asst. yr. 2002-03.2. In the first ground, the Revenue has assailed the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing deduction under Section 10A of the Act to the assessee in respect of the profits relating to the undertaking of the assessee set up in the Noida Export Processing Zone (in short, NEPZ).In this regard, the factual position is that the assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of development and export of computer software. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed a return of income declaring income of Rs. 4,60,330 which, inter alia, included the claim of exemption under Section 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,47,48,225. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31st March, 2005, the AO denied the claim of exemption under Section 10A of the Act. The claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 10A related to the profits derive...

Microsoft Corporation Vs. Mr. Kiran and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)214; 2007(35)PTC748(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyrights, trademarks, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the defendants. The said suit has been instituted by one Mr. Anand Banerjee, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff by virtue of a Letter of Authority in his favor (Ex. P1).2. The plaintiff, Microsoft Corporation, is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washinton, USA. The plaintiff has its marketing subsidiary, Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited, located in New Delhi. The plaintiff is stated to be one of the world's widely known companies and is also the largest software publisher in the world. The computer software of the plaintiff including various operating systems such as Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows XP 2002 and application software such as Microsoft Office have acquired great fame and renown throughout the world. It is stated that apart fr...

Shriram Centre and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1167]; (2008)ILLJ6679Del

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At the outset, I may note that petitioner No. 4 has died. Thus, qua petitioner No. 4 the complaint has abated. 2. Notwithstanding various contentions urged in the memorandum of the petition filed by the petitioners invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that complaint lodged under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 by Babu Lal, the Labour Inspector be quashed, at the hearing today, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed the petition on 2 counts. 3. It is firstly alleged that a perusal of the complaint does not establish as to what is the case against which accused. 4. Second contention urged is that the complaint makes gibberish reading, i.e. is unintelligible. A printed proforma has been used to fill up names, dates etc. Exact nature of the complaint is not spelt out for the reason certain paragraphs have been 'v' probably indicating that complaint relates to said alleged defaults. 5. To appreciate the submissions made by learned Counsel for the ...

Ramji Lal Vs. Amit Ved (Deceased by Lr)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1220

ORDERV.B. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 which is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate since 2002.2. The respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on the allegation that petitioner has issued four cheques for Rs. 40,000/- each to the respondent in order to repay the loan and the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation.3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no dealing whatsoever, with the respondent/complainant and no loan was ever taken from him. The cheques in question which were given as security have been misused by the complainant in connivance with his father and the cheques were given blank and only the amount was filled up by the petitioner and the petitioner had already repaid the loan. Hence, th...