Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eltek Sgs (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)279; [2008]300ITR6(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA No. 3669/D/2003 relevant for the Assessment Year 2001-2002.2. The short question that has arisen for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is with regard to the claim of deduction by the assessed on customs duty drawback of Rs. 42,92,725/- under Section 80IB of the Act.3. The Assessing Officer declined to grant a deduction by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sterling Foods : 1999ECR481(SC) . It may at one be pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court related to import entitlement under the Export Promotion Scheme of the Government of India and on the interpretation of Section 80HH of the Act.4. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] who...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)99CTR(Del)218; [2008]305ITR245(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 8th September, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in IT(SS) No. 107/Del/2003 relevant for the block period from 1st April, 1989 to 20th February, 2000.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a search was conducted at the residence of the Appellant on 10th February, 2000. During the course of search, two Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) dated 1st March, 1999 were recovered. These MOUs were entered into between the assessed, Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar. In terms of the MOUs, the assessed had paid Rs. 25 lakhs each to Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar towards part consideration for the purchase of agricultural land valued at Rs. 123.30 lakhs. The balance amount was to be paid on or before 30th April, 1999, failing which the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs each would be forfeited.3. On the basis of the MOUs, the Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire to Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar regarding receipt of ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.E.i. Technologies (Pvt) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]304ITR262(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 17th November, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 5079/Del of 2004 relevant for the assessment year 2001-2002.2. The assessed had entered into a joint venture agreement with Tyco Asia Investment Ltd. and Elentec Co. Ltd. to carry out manufacturing operations of CRT sockets, electronic components like TV remote control etc. for the domestic market as well as for exports. The assessed paid an amount of Rs. 9,23,733/- to Tyco Asia Investment Ltd. as well as Elentec Co. Ltd. as technical support fee. According to the Assessing Officer, the benefit received by the assessed was of an enduring nature and, thereforee, the amount was treated as a capital expenditure and not as a revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessed.3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessed took up the matter before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] who came to the conclusion that in fact the assessed was...

Ms. Chhaya Shriram Vs. Deepak C. Shriram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT673(NULL)

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been made by the applicant seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the applicant/petitioner and the respondents, arising out of or in connection with the Trust Deed dated 14th September, 1984.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that a trust in the name of 'Chinar Trust' was constituted on 14th September, 1984 between Brigadier Rajaratnam Lokranjan ( on one part) and Mr. N.R.Dongre and Mrs. Sumitra Charat Ram (on the other part). Brigadier Rajaratnam was the settler of the Trust and Mr. N.R.Dongre and Mrs. Sumitra Charat Ram were the two trustees of the Trust. This Trust with an amount of Rs. 5001/- was opened for the benefit of the beneficiaries as defined in the Trust. As per Trust, up to the period of 30th June, 1989 Vishvakarma Trust, a Trust settled by Mr. Prem Pandhi in terms of Trust Deed d...

Uttam Company Vs. S.G. Stock Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR584(Delhi); 162(2009)DLT294

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') assailing the award dated 16th October, 2007 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of a claim submitted by the petitioner against the respondent. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner filed a claim against the respondent for a sum of Rs. 26.90 lacs along with interest @ 2% per month to be compounded on a monthly basis for the period of delay till the settlement of amount of the claim. The petitioner had also claimed a sum of Rs. 1.00 crore on account of loss of opportunities caused to it because of delay on the part of the respondent.2. Under the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded the petitioner/claimant a sum of Rs. 26,90,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 22.11.2006 to the date of payment of the amount. The petitioner was also allowed costs of Rs. 30,000/- against the respondent. However, the Arbitral T...

Vijay Pal Singh Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT662; (2008)IILLJ536Del; 2008(3)SLJ542(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge agreeing with award dated 7th April, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal holding that the appellant is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement and regularisation. 2. The appellant was working as muster roll employee with the NDMC and while working as such he was caught red handed stealing sprinkler valves on 19th June, 1993. A criminal case under Section 379/411 IPC was filed against him. The appellant did not report for duty after that. The criminal case was brought to trial and on conclusion of the trial, he was convicted on 6th August, 1994. However, by order dated 8th August, 1994 he was released on probation. 3. A representation was filed by the appellant in 1995 requesting the respondent to re-engage him and take him back in service. The said request was rejected by the respondent. A copy of the letter written by the resp...

K.P.G. Nair Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ704

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 2111/1/04 pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi titled M/s. Officeaids and Ors. v. Pertech Computers Ltd. and Ors. and all proceedings consequent thereto including the summoning order dated 24th July, 1998 passed by the learned MM. 2. The aforementioned complaint was filed by Respondents 2 and 3 in the Court of the learned MM under Sections 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act'). The complainant alleged that pursuant to commercial dealings between the parties, as on 31st August 1997 a sum of Rs. 43.47 lakhs was due and payable to M/s. Officeaids the complainant , by M/s. Pertech Computers Ltd. ('PCL') accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 was the Chairman of PCL. The Petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 3 in his capacity as Director, PCL. Accused No. 4 to 8 were also shown as Directors of PCL. It was stated in the complaint...

Savita Devi Vs. D.S.i.D.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ737

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and also the order dated 18th September, 2007 whereby a review application filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. While dismissing the writ petition, it was held that there is no cogent and sufficient evidence brought on record by the appellant to indicate that the unit of the appellant was functional in the true sense of the term till the relevant cut off'date i.e. 31st December, 1996 in order to get the benefit of allotment of alternative land.3. The appellant herein alleged that she was having a unit functioning at the premises and that she had to close the said unit pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court some time in April and July, 1996. The orders of the Supreme Court passed in April and July, 1996 indicate that all the units / premises carrying on industrial and impermissible activities in resident...

Cce Vs. Bhiwadi Cylinders Pvt. Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 38 (MPM)ST/JPR-I/2006 dated 28.4.2006. (a) The respondent is a manufacturer of LPG Cylinders. They also undertake heat treatment / repair of old LPG cylinder under rate contract for oil companies like IOCL, BPCL and HPCL. (b) Maintenance and repair services were brought under the service tax net w.e.f. 1.7.2003. (c) The respondent during the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2004 received a sum of Rs. 55,87,546/- towards such repair. (d) On the insistence of the department, they paid tax on the said repair services treating it as falling under the "Repair and Maintenance" services and paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,112/-. The tax was paid claiming the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 on an amount which was the gross amount minus the cost of material used in repairs. (e) The Original Authority held that the respondent was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST a...

Cce Vs. Rajendra Gupta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard ld. SDR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that as per provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act the Assistant Commissioner or as the case may be the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is the proper officer to issue the notice for recovery of tax.In the present case show-cause notice was issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act were further amended by Finance Act 2005 with effect from 13.5.05 whereby the Central Excise Officer was empowered to issue a show-cause notice in respect of Service Tax which has not been levied or short paid or which has been short levied or short paid. The contention is that the notice has been issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise who is Central Excise officer, therefore, the demand cannot be set aside ...