Delhi Court December 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Synthetics Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)339; [2009]309ITR371(Delhi); [2009]176TAXMAN355(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J1. These references have been made at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 7.1.2008 passed in ITR No. 139/1988 and an order dated 19.5.2008 passed in ITR No. 202/1989, framed the following questions of law, respectively:ITR No. 139/1988Whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that the third Instalment of know how fee as also interest paid thereon for belated payment was allowable as revenue expenditureITR No. 202/1989Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the agreements that the Assessee company entered into with the Italian and West German companies, the payments made of Rs. 30,57,499 to M/s Technimont and Rs. 3,48,033 to M/s IWKA, West Germany was allowable as revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure2. The issues involved in the two references are inter-related as they pe...

Shri Praveen Sharma S/O Shri H.L. Sharma Vs. the Secretary Union Publi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT250

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question for consideration is what constitutes an 'attempt' at taking an examination' Does it mean taking all the papers in the examination (as contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner) or does it include taking some of the papers only' In our opinion, for the purposes of the Civil Services Examination (the CSE), which is what we are concerned with, an 'attempt' in the examination includes taking some of the papers only. 2. The Petitioner was a candidate for the CSE conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the year 2006. In the CSE, a candidate is entitled to only four attempts at passing the examination. 3. The Petitioner appeared in the CSE in 2001, 2003 and 2004 but did not qualify the examination. The Petitioner then appeared in the CSE in 2005. Admittedly, this was his 4th and last attempt at clearing the CSE. Unfortunately, between the examination dates, the Petitioner met with a rather serious accident and so he could not appear ...

D.B. Madan Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT523; 2009(2)SLJ368(Delhi)

ORDER1. This appeal challenges the impugned orders dated 22nd October 2008 and 19th November 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CM Application Nos. 14502 of 2008 and 15637-38 of 2008 respectively in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7481 of 2008. 2. The Appellant was employed with the Respondent No. 1 Punjab National Bank ('Bank') since 1976. A show cause notice was issued to him on 25th April 1992 regarding serious lapses/irregularities in respect of the account of M/s. Pankaj Finance & Leasing Limited during his tenure as the Manager of the Connaught Place Branch of the Bank in the year 1989. According to the appellant, he replied to this notice and nothing was done by the Bank thereafter. The date of superannuation of the Appellant was 30th June 2007. A month prior to his retirement i.e. on 2nd June 2007 a show cause notice dated 30th May 2007 was issued to him alleging that while working as Manager at Connaught Place Branch, he failed to follow Bank's prescribed systems and procedu...

Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]320ITR619(Delhi); [2009]179TAXMAN25(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in remanding back the case to the Assessing Officer when the matter has been examined on merits by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).2. Filing of paper books is dispense with. Counsel for the parties agreed that this appeal can be disposed of straightaway.3. We are of the view that the question framed above needs to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We note that the Tribunal arrived at the following conclusion:It is seen that it is a case of private limited company and the money has been received in cash. Therefore, a heavy duty is cast to establish not on the identity of share applicant but also the creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of transaction. It is further seen that the assessee has only established the identity of the share applicants by producing PA...

Directorate of Enforcement Vs. M.D. Ruparel and Sons

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. By these two revision petitions, the Enforcement Directorate has sought this Tribunal under Section 52(4) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, to examine legality, propriety and correctness of the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/90 to 96/B/SDE/PKA/2000 dated 11th May, 2000, passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, whereby allegations of contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) r/w Sections 64(2), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and 8(1) r/w Section 9(1)(f)(i) FER Act, 1973, are dropped against the respondents even when the respondents admittedly worked us clearing agent of the alleged over-invoiced imported books by different firms or proprietorship concerns which are purportedly managed by one Naresh T. Mehra, who had been proprietor of M/s. Brooks International. It is contended that despite admissional statement of respondent Mahendra M. Ruparel regarding nor importing goods of the kind ...

Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjud ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(235)ELT801(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common final order dated 07.10.2008 whereby the appellants' appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had been dismissed.2. Initially the appellants had filed writ petitions being WP (C) Nos. 5438/2008, 5441/2008, 5448/2008, 5449/2008 & 5452/2008 against the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties. The said writ petitions were disposed of by our order dated 12.08.2008 granting an opportunity to the appellants to move further applications before the Tribunal taking up the plea of financial hardship specifically. We had also permitted the appellants to place all the material on record which may not have been there before the Tribunal in the first round with regard to the financial hardship. The learn for the appellants had stated that the applications would be moved before the Tribunal within three weeks along with all the materia...

General Manager N.T.P.C. and anr. Vs. Lt. Col. A.P. Singh (Retd.) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT572

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th June 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby an application of the petitioners under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as under Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had hired services of respondent No. 1 herein for providing security guards for mining department at its mining project area at Kahalgon Super Thermal Power Project, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. The respondent No. 1 and other persons who had contested bid were sponsored by the Directorate General of Re-settlement (DGR). The contract was awarded to respondent No. 1 on 18th July 2005 for a period of one year extendable for another period of one year. The respondent No. 1 was awarded a fresh contract on 13th December 2006 for a period of one year. This contract was extendable only for a period of four months after its expiry in ...

N.T.P.C. (General Manager) and anr. Vs. Lt. Col. A.P. Singh (Retd.) an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)154PLR8

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th June, 2008 passed by Learned Additional District Judge whereby an application of the petitioners under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as under Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had hired services of respondent No. 1 herein for providing security guards for mining department at its mining project area at Kahalgon Super Thermal Power Project, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. The respondent No. 1 and other persons who had contested bid were sponsored by the Directorate General of Re-settlement (DGR). The contract was awarded to respondent No. 1 on 18th July, 2005 for a period of one year extendable for another period of one year. The respondent No. 1 was awarded a fresh contract on 13th December, 2006 for a period of one year. This contract was extendable only for a period of four months after its expiry ...

P.C. JaIn and ors. Vs. J.K. Soni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT760

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against an order of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dated 3rd November 2006 whereby he reversed the order of learned Additional Rent Controller(ARC) allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord (petitioner herein) under Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act).2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(1)(a)(c)(j)(h) and (k) of DRC Act. The learned ARC dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a)(c) and (j) and decreed the same under Section 14(1)(h) and (k) vide his order dated 18th January 2001. With respect to Section 14(1)(k) the learned ARC ordered an inquiry which is pending. The respondent preferred an appeal before the ARCT and the learned ARCT vide the impugned order reversed the order of the learned ARC under Section 14(1)(h),...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Integrated Databases India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN432(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In the present appeal the appellant seeks to raise the question of interpretation with regard to the provisions of Section 10B(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The said provision is virtually identical to the provisions of Section 80IA(7) as also 80HHB(3)(ia). It is also identical to the erstwhile provisions of Section 80J(6A) of the said Act.2. This Court has already interpreted the latter provisions and has held the same to be directory and not mandatory. The contention of the revenue was that unless and until the audit report is filed along with the return, the benefit of Section 10A cannot be available to the assessee. Recently, we have considered the identical provisions of Section 80IA(7) in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electricals Private Limited ITA 1366/2008 decided on 02.12.2008 and held that as long as the audit report is filed before the framing of the assessment, the provisions of Section 80IA(7) would b...