Delhi Court June 2008 Judgments

Prem Nath Motors Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC311; 155(2008)DLT341

G.S. Sistani, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 22,62,713.30.2. The facts of the case are that on 11.7.1963 plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract bearing No. 4606/1/Alwar/63-64/ST3 at Delhi for supply by the plaintiff of vehicles to the defendants for training military personnel at Alwar from 15.7.1963 to 31.3.1964. The contract specified the type and minimum and maximum number of various types of vehicles to be supplied. In terms of the contract the plaintiff was to deposit a security deposit, which plaintiff deposited in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt of amount of Rs. 1,39,700/- in the name of the defendant, As per the plaintiff the special conditions stated the rate of hire charges of various types of vehicles for 'duty for eight hours in a day or night or partly by day or night'. The plaintiff relies on para 5 and 6 of the plaint, which is reproduced as under:5. In Appendices A and C to the special conditions in the said contract the r...

Cebon India Limited Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue arise out of the order of the CIT (A), Panchkula, passed on 30.09.2005 in Appeal No.Res/64/GGN/04-05, pertaining to assessment year 1996-97. On perusal of the order of the learned CIT (A), it is found that the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,43,460/- on 30.11.1996. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] on 30.05.1997, determining the total income at Rs. 8,20,814/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act on 18.03.1999 determining the total income at Rs. 2,14,89,110/-. The appeal against this order was decided by the CIT (A) on 17.09.1999. However, the Tribunal, vide order No.4551/Del/1999 dated 31.03.2003 restored the appeal to the file of the CIT (A). Consequently, the CIT (A) passed an order on 30.09.2005 and the appeals before us emanate from this order.2. Ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is preliminar...

Suresh Rohtagi Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No. ADDL(APK)/III/01/93 dated 5-2-1993 passed by Additional Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees seventy five thousands only) against the appellant, Suresh Rohtagi, for contravention of the provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having purchased and sold foreign exchange without the permission of RBI at the rates other than prescribed by the RBI and besides confiscating the seized foreign currencies and Indian currency under section 63 of the FERA. The appellant has made payment of 10 per cent of the penalty amount where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 2. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and from Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, for the respondent and gone through the record carefully. A show-cause Notice was issued against the appellant in this case for p...

Syed Latafat HussaIn Jeelani Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2. This is an appeal against adjudication order No. DD/13/Hyd./SZ/01(VS) dated 28-8-2001 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 against the appellant for contravention of sections 8(1), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(f)(i) and 9(1)(a) read with section 64(2) FER Act, 1973 on the reasons that appellant committed abetment by assisting his brother named S.M. Hussain Rashid in (i) wrongful acquisition of foreign currency, (ii) receiving and distributing money on the instructions of non-resident person and (iii) receiving/making payment in consideration of receipt or acquisition of property outside India. The appellant has made pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000 in compliance of order dated 1-12-2006 passed by this Tribunal. Presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. We have heard Shri P. Ojha, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA on behalf of respondent. 4. It is contended by learned counsel Shri P. Ojha that ch...

Rajat Lal, Managing Director, Sir Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A) dated 22^nd March, 2007 for assessment year 1997-98. Grounds of appeal read as under: The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in charging interest Under Section 220(2) brushing aside Appellant's submissions made before me to the effect that the Appellant is not liable to charge of interest Under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding A.O.'s action in treating the appellant to be in default and liable to charge of interest Under Section 220(2) ignoring he fact that the demand raised by the A.O. pursuant to order Under Section 143(3) dated 29.3.2000 was vacated by the Ld. CIT (A) vide his appellate order dated 20.5.2000 and there remained no outstanding demand prior to passing of consequential order Under Section 254 in a unilateral manner, to give effect to Tribunal's order in the appe...

income Tax Officer Vs. Mewar Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)141

1. All the three appeals are Revenue's appeals directed against a consolidated order of the learned CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi, dt. 25th June, 2007 for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02.2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are identical in these three appeals, and hence we reproduce the grounds from 1TA No. 4058/De1/2007. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), when the additions made in the assessment order have been confirmed in the quantum appeal by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts of the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and other similar cases have been referred to a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court itself in the case of CIT v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (ITA No. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering decision o...

J.V. Mercantile (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)154PLR5

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioners who are two in numbers have filed this writ petition against the respondent (State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) seeking quashing of tender notice (Annexure P-2) whereby the respondent intends to sell the property in question of the petitioners.2. Mr. M.S. Saluja, Advocate for State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur accepts notice of this petition on behalf of the respondent.3. As per Annexure P-2 at page 25 of the Paper-book, there are two properties which the respondent intends to sell to realize its dues outstanding against the petitioners. One property is owned by the petitioner No. 1 and the second property is owned by the petitioner No. 2. Details of the properties are given at page No. 37 of the Paper Book. As far as the property owned by the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is 70% construction in the said property and the same, therefore, cannot be said to be agricultural land and is thus outside the purview of Section 31 of the Securitisation and ...

Shri Ranjeet Singh Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross appeal by the assessee and Revenue arise out of order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi. These appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The first issue for consideration in assessee's appeal relates to assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the I.T. Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for assessment year 1098-99 on 30^th March. 2005 by Income-tax Officer, Ward : 2(2). Ghaziabad. In response to the notice it was submitted by the assessee that he had filed return with the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(2) Delhi and was being regularly assessed by him. However, it was stated that return filed originally may be treated a return filed in response to notice under Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter the file was transferred by Income-tax Officer.Ward : 2 (2), Ghaziabad, to the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle 40 (1). New De...

Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Saketh India Ltd.

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. These two revision petitions are filed for examining legality, propriety and correctness of the adjudication order No. SDE/KRB/VI/11/2000 dated 13th October, 2000, passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, under Section 52(4) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, exonerating the respondents herein from the charges of contravention of Sections 18(2), 18(3) and 68 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, without any proof of taking reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds when an amount of US dollars 3,53,77,745 of export proceeds is still unrealised. 3. There is no controversy that revision petitions are filed on 8.3.2001 against a common adjudication order dated 13.10.2000, after expiry of 146 days, i.e. 4 months and 25 days. The respondent in both these revision petitions have filed their respective reply against particular revision petition. Further, there is...

Nagesh Kumar Vs. Nagesh Hosiery Exports Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

1. In the order I am considering Company Petition No. 97 of 2006 filed by Shri Nagesh Kumar and Smt. Renu Mehra under section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) against Nagesh Hosiery Exports Ltd. and others alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are Nagesh Hosiery Exports Ltd. (R-1) was incorporated in 1980 having its registered office at G-32, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. The authorised share capital of the company was initially Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. However, in the year early 1980, the authorised capital of the company was increased from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 2,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The main objects of the company are to carry on business of manufacturing, trading rebuilding, refinishing, exporting, importing and dealing both in wholesale and in retail in tools, articles, substances, plant, machinery and commodities of al...