Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments

i.T.C. Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT433; 2009(171)LC175(Delhi); 2010(250)ELT189(Del)

ORDER19.1 Considering the above discussions and findings, I make the following order:(a) pending provisional assessments shall be finalized by the respective proper officers and where the assessment had already been finalized, differential duty demanded, on the basis of the revised assessable value(s) of the cigarettes, keeping in view the findings above; and the company shall pay the differential duty demanded, (whether on finalization of the provisional assessments or otherwise as aforesaid; and(b) penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (rupees one crore only) is imposed on the company under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, I do not propose to order confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery, materials, etc.9. On 27.01.1988, the impugned show cause notices were issued for the period 27.06.1980 to 28.02.1983. According to the respondent, the said show cause notice came to be issued as they had gathered intelligence that the writ petitioner was evading the payment of...

The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-vi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)109; [2010]321ITR88(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN167(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These appeals are preferred by few assessees, including Motor & General Finance Ltd. and Goodwill India Ltd. The appeals also relate to different assessment years, but the question involved in all these appeals is singularly common, namely, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') was correct in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the interest by way of compensation to be calculated for 'every month or part of the month' on the amounts of taxes paid from the date of actual payment as provided in Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') for the entire period of wrongful retention as defined in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax I, Pune and Ors. : (2006) 2 SCC 508 where the entire or almost entire additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) stand ultimately d...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Entrack Internatinoal Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(250)ELT166(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent is engaged in the business of import and distribution of Mont Blanc products supplied by M/s. Mont Blanc, Switzerland. The respondent has a boutique at Maurya Sheraton Hotel in Delhi and their office is located at Rajkot in Gujarat. The respondent had placed an order for the supply of watch straps made of ostrich, calf and alligator leather. The airline through which the goods came handed over two invoices to the Custom House Agent of the respondent and on the basis of these two invoices, the Custom House Agent filed Bill of Entry No. 467881 dated 4.4.2003. Based on the said two invoices (Invoice No. 10488473 and 10488486) the respondent declared 513 and 600 watch straps respectively The respondent had also produced a certificate under Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (hereinafter referred to as 'CITES') The goods were examined and it was felt that he leather straps of ostrich and alligator were restricted in terms of licensing not...

Emca Construction Co. Thr. M.P. Gupta Vs. Archelological Survey of Ind ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT515

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Not very far from this Court is located the Humayun's Tomb. It is a historical monument. It is a mausoleum built for the Mughal emperor Humayun who ruled between 1530 and 1540 and again from 1555 till 1556 when his son Akbar took over the reins. The construction of the mausoleum was commenced by Humayun's senior widow Hamida Banu Begum also known as Haji Begum in 1565, nine years after his death. A Persian architect Mirak Mirza Ghiyath was commissioned to design and build it. It is stated to exemplify a synthesis of Persian and Indian traditions of architecture. The arched alcoves, corridors and the high double dome signify the Persian influence and the kiosks which give it a pyramidal outline from a distance are attributed to the Indian influence. It is believed to have inspired the design of the Taj Mahal, a monument built many years later in Agra by Humayun's great grandson Shahjahan.2. Humayun's tomb is square red sandstone double-storeyed structure that rises f...

Sushma Nayar Vs. Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT91

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is a post-graduate teacher in Mathematics in Delhi Public School, Mathura Road. She has raised challenge to the appointment and continuance of respondent No. 4 as Principal of the said school, on the ground that as on the date of selection, he did not possess the requisite qualification as he was 48 years of age whereas, the upper age limit for being considered to the post was 45 years. The fact that respondent No. 4 was over 45 years of age at the time of his selection is not in dispute. However, consequent upon his selection and confirmation, a communication was addressed by the Chairman of the Delhi Public School Society to the Directorate of Education requesting for grant of ex-post facto relaxation in his age. The ground taken was that he had remained in the employment of DPS Society in his capacity as teacher and head of the department in a School at Bhilai and that the upper age limit of 45 years should not be made applicable to him as he had 23...

Estate of Meera Malhotra Vs. Vijay Dixit and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT84

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit claims to be the 'Estate of Ms. Meera Malhotra' who died on 11.11.1999. It is contended that probate proceedings in respect of her estate are pending on the file of the District Judge, Delhi and that in those proceedings, an application for appointment of a Curator was filed, for litigation on behalf of her Estate, in the subject property which was disposed of by order dated 25-9-2002, allowing Ms. Indu Bala Malhotra, Smt. Rita Anand, S/Shri Deepak and Anil Malhotra, to file the present suit. The said four individuals are the children of late Inderjit Lal Malhotra.2. The suit claims partition and possession of 1/4th share of the estate of late Ms. Malhotra, in respect of the freehold rights of F-5, East of Kailash, New Delhi ('the suit property'). That property was owned by late Charanjit Lal Malhotra, (hereafter 'Charanjit Lal') father of Ms. Meera Malhotra, and of Bikramjit Lal Malhotra, Ranjit Lal Malhotra, and late Inderjit Lal Malho...

Atlas Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(249)ELT522(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The brief factual matrix transpires as under:2. The petitioner had entered into a franchisee agreement on 20.4.2004 with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BSNL). As per this agreement, the petitioner was to provide broadband connection to landline subscribers of BSNL in Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad and Gurgaon. For this purpose, the petitioner was to supply broadband and triple play equipment. It decided to procure the same through its supplier ZTE Corporation, China (hereinafter referred to as the 'supplier'). In order to fulfil this obligation with BSNL, the petitioner entered into two sales contracts with the supplier to supply ADSL port and related broadband equipment for a total capacity for 10,000 subscribers. These agreements were entered into on 2.12.2004 and on that basis the petitioner imported the aforesaid equipment which reached India between 23.12.2004 and 24.6.2005. The petitioner got the equipments cleared on payment of requisite ...

Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)262; [2010]320ITR420(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN74(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In all these appeals, common question of which arises for consideration, which relate to interpretation of Section 35-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). For the purpose of convenience, we are taking note of the facts of ITA No. 1261/2008.2. The appellant is a widely held public limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of multi storeyed residential buildings and complexes, promotion and development of residential colonies and other real estate development projects since 1983. During the assessment year 1994-95 the appellant came out with two issues of shares for public subscription to augment its working capital namely a right issue (4821300 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each @ a premium of Rs. 1250/- each aggregating to Rs. 108479250/- ) and a public issue (2419900 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each @ a premium of Rs. 15/- each aggregating to Rs. 61497500/- ) Expenditure of Rs. 491347985 was incurred towards the right ...

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)209; 2009[16]STR545; [2009]23STT400; (2010)27VST497(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner herein, namely, Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Ltd., entered into market development agreement dated 1.7.2005 with Microsoft Operations, Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the 'MS'). Both the MS and the petitioner are the wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft Corporation, Washington (hereinafter referred to as the 'Holding Company'). As per the agreement dated 1.7.2005, the petitioner was appointed to provide various technical support services, including marketing of Microsoft products in Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and British Indian Ocean territory. For the services provided by the petitioner to the MS under the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner is receiving commission. The respondent herein has taken the view that the commission received on these services is amenable to service tax. After issuing show-cause notice, the first respondent passed the order-in-original dated 23.9.2008 raising demand of more than Rs. 255 crores, which includ...

Dhir and Dhir Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai ...

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

S. Balasubramanian, Chairman 1. The main ground on which this petition has been filed is that even though the petitioner, which has acquired the debt of the company, the non-repayment of which would entitle the petitioner to acquire 51 per cent, shares in the company is being denied the shares even though the company has not repaid the debt. The relief sought is that the register of membership should be rectified recording that the petitioner holds 51 per cent, shares. There are certain other allegations and consequential further reliefs have been sought. 2. The facts of the case are : M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. ("the company") which was incorporated in August, 1943, is presently under the management of the officials of the Government of Rajasthan. The company had availed of loans from the IDBI at different periods by executing various loan agreements. One of the terms of these agreements is that in case of default in repayment of the loan as per the terms of the agreemen...