Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Pioneer Agencies Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the revised order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the adjudication order was revised and the penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was enhanced.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the business of selling of recharge coupons of mobile phones. They obtained registration on 31.10.04 under the nature of service of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. They paid tax on 20^th July, 2005 and interest on 23^rd August, 2005 for the period 1^st July, 2003 to 31^st March, 2004. The adjudicating authority took a lenient view under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty of Rs. 100/- each under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner by the impugned order, revised the penalty of Rs. 98,900/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1,94,920/- under Section 78 of the said Act.3. The learned Advocate submits that the appellant is engaged in the small business of buying and s...

Raaj Khosla and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ41CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. Applicant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the credit in respect of Rs. 5,18,027/- of service tax and Rs. 57,527/- was disallowed.3. In respect of credit of Rs. 5,18,027/-, the contention of the appellant is that the invoices were in the name of appellant. However, the address of the firm as given in the invoice was different from the address given in the registration certificate. The contention is that the appellants are working from different places and subsequently all the places were got registered with the Revenue and the Registration certificate was amended on 8.8.06. The address given in the invoice in dispute is now included in the registration certificate. In these circumstances, as the invoice is used in or in relation to the service provided by the appellant, the credit cannot be denied.4. In respect of credit of Rs. 57,527/- the contention is that the credit was taken in the names of 'M/s. Shelters' and address of appellant is given. The contention i...

Moonbeam Finvest Lease Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-4-2006 assessment year 1998-99. Grounds of appeal read as under: 1. That there is no valid jurisdiction with the assessing officer to commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and consequently the reassessment so framed is bad in law. 2. That the condition laid down to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act has not been complied with by the assessing officer, and accordingly the reassessment so framed is bad in law. 3. That there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment and accordingly the reassessment proceedings commenced after four years from the end of relevant assessment year is not sustainable under the law. 4. That there was no valid material available with the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and ac...

Vacuum Instruments Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)930

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XX New Delhi dt. 18th Aug., 2004 for the asst. yr.2001-02.2. Shri Madhu Sudan Sahni, advocate, chartered accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Dr. Devender Singh, Departmental Representative represented the Revenue. The learned CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the disallowance of PF and ESIC amounting to Rs. 3,66,842 and Rs. 72,015 respectively. The disallowance of PF and ESIC at Rs. 3,66,842 and Rs. 72,015 respectively is unfounded and uncalled for and extremely exorbitant.4. The assessee had claimed deductions in respect of payments of PF and ESIC. The AO has examined the details furnished by the assessee and found that following payments were made beyond the date and even after the grace period of 5 days allowed by the PF Department:-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Month Total amount of Due date of Date of employees as well payments payments as of...

Cpr Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)528

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. DEL/CIT-A2/2002-03/161 dt. 7th March, 2003 on as many as 16 grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 17 are general in nature hence no adjudication is required from our side.3. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 relating to various legal issues as stated in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before us; accordingly, the same are rejected as not pressed.4. Ground No. 10 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 93,546 on account of commission earned by the assessee and ground No. 1 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,45.575 by the CIT(A) out of the total addition of Rs. 28,28,902 made by the AO as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Ground No. 12 relates to upholding of the addition of Rs. 9,75,000 by the CIT(A) relating to share application money and ground No. 13 pertains to confirmation of addition of Rs...

Nuware India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee emanates from the order of the CIT(Appeals), Faridabad, passed on 12.09.2005. The corresponding order of assessment was framed by the Deputy CIT, Central Circle, Faridabad, on 26.2.1999 under the provisions of Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Ground No. 1 is residuary in nature, which was not argued by the learned Counsel. Ground No. 1 is to the effect that the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer regarding the re-opening of the assessment Under Section 147 of the Act. This ground was not pressed by the learned Counsel during the course of hearing before us. Therefore, these grounds are dismissed.3. Ground No. 2 is to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making additions or disallowances on the issues which were not the subject matter of the reasons recorded fo...

Moonbeam Finvest Lease Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)510

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 13th April, 2006 asst. yr. 1998 99. Grounds of appeal read as under: 1. That there is no valid jurisdiction with the AO to commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act and consequently the reassessment so framed is bad in law. 2. That the condition laid down to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 of the IT Act has not been complied with by the AO, and accordingly the reassessment so framed is bad in law. 3. That there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment and accordingly the reassessment proceedings commenced after four years from the end of relevant assessment year is not sustainable under the law. 4. That there was no valid material available with the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the IT Act and accordingly the notice, as issued by the AO under Section 148 and the reassessment so ma...

income Tax Officer Vs. Shree Vallabh Smarak Bhojanalaya

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)683

1. This miscellaneous application (MA) has been filed by the Revenue against the Order passed by the Tribunal on 22nd Sept., 2006 rendered in ITA No. 5301/Del/2003.Shri Sandeep Bhandhu, senior Departmental Representative represented for the Revenue (appellant) and Shri M.K. Madaan, Authorised Representative represented for the assessee (respondent).2. At the outset, we want to point out the certain facts leading to this MA as under: This Department filed this M.A. on 1st March, 2007. In the note of Authorised Representative, dt. 9th May, 2007 it was intimated that so many Departmental M.As including present MA are pending before Tribunal for want of record of appeal files. On this note, the Hon'ble Vice President directed that all the MAs filed by the Department be fixed for hearing within 30 days of filing. This MA was therefore fixed for hearing although the appeal file record was not available.3. Hence the facts as found from the copies of the Order of Tribunal rendered in the appe...

Millennium Infocom Technologies Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)456

1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 2001-02 arises out of order of CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi.2. The first issue consideration relates to sustaining of disallowance of Rs. 3,26,386 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee incurred total expenditure of Rs. 5,01,183 for domain registration. After capitalizing an amount of Rs. 1,74,797 for website launched in the year, an amount of Rs. 3,26,386 was claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessee paid these amounts through credit cards. It was explained by the assessee that since the payments were made to non-resident foreign companies and the provisions of Section 195 were not applicable to foreign/non-resident companies, the assessee was not statutorily liable to deduct tax at source. The AO relying on the provisions of Section 195 held that the TDS provisions were applicable both to non-companies and foreign companies. AO followed the decision of...

Cobra Instalacions Y. Services, Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)534

1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 2002-03 arises out of order of CIT(A)-XXTX, New Delhi. The only issue for consideration relates to withdrawing of interest allowed under Section 244A of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case stated in brief are that while processing the return of income under Section 143(1) interest under Section 244A was allowed on refund due to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO noticed that the assessee had not enclosed a copy of power of attorney in favour of Mr. Jesus M. Barasaoin along with the return of income who signed and verified the same as provided under Section 140(c) of the Act. The assessee on being pointed out by the AO in this regard filed the aforesaid power of attorney on 17th Feb., 2003. The AO issued notice order under Section 154 expressing his intention to withdraw the interest under Section 244A granted on refund from the date of filing of the return to the date of filing of power of attorney. The assessee filed reply to notice un...