Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 5 of about 723 results (0.043 seconds)M/S. Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Cst and St- Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are registered with Service Tax department for providing taxable services viz. Business Auxiliary Services, information Technology Software Services, intellectual Property Services and Copyright and Transport of Goods by Road. The appellants filed an application for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 9,40,343/- on the grounds that they had entered into an agreement with M/s. Diageo Radico Distrilleries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. DRDPL) for providing services of procurement and manufacturing of goods, Business Support, Sales and Distribution of Goods for which the consideration for the services and service tax was paid by DRDPL to them and accordingly due service tax was deposited, but later on DRDPL terminated the said service agreement with the appellants and the services were not provided by the appellants. Upon termination of agreement, the appellants returned the consideration alongwi...
Tag this Judgment!A Malik International Trading Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-XXV, New Delhi both dated 20.12.2012 for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 in Appeal No. 115/2011-12 and 122/2011-12 respectively. 2. The revenue has raised similar sole ground of appeal in both these appeals which reads as under:- "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as fact in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the case and recomputed the deduction u/s 80-HHC after giving 2 ITA No.1124 and 1125/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2003-04 full opportunity to the assessee which amounts to setting aside the matter which is not permissible in law." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that the original assessments were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 (for short the Act) vide order dated 10.05.2007 after making disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 39,89,187 and Rs. 20,10,594/- respectively in bo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order. In Appeal No.2442, duty of Rs.8,00,032/- stands confirmed and in Appeal No.2443, duty of Rs.3,26,904/- stands confirmed by denying the benefit of CENVAT credit on two grounds. First, that the credit is not available in respect of various steel items used as structurals and second on the ground that invoices on the basis of which CENVAT credit stands availed, were in the name of other units i.e., Unit No.1 was taking credit in the name of Unit No.2 and vice versa. 2. At this stage, Ld. Advocate for the appellants fairly agrees that the issue of availment of CENVAT credit on supporting structurals stands decided against them by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global. However, he draws my attention to their reply filed before the lower authorities contesting that the various iron and steel items were used in the manufacture of solvent ________________ plant and as such even in terms of ...
Tag this Judgment!Acl Wireless Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
G.D. Agrawal, VP: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 31st December, 2012 for the AY 2009-10. 2. Ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:- "Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of `26,94,840/- made on account of capitalization of software expenses ignoring the fact that - (a) The expenses on the nature of capital expenditure are not allowed under the provision of section 37(1). (b) The aim of the expenditure incurred by the assessee is clearly in the nature of acquisition of an advantage of lasting nature and to bring an enduring benefit to the business." 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find this issue to be covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 vide ITA No.1330/Del/2012 and AY 2008-09 vide ITA No.4743/Del/2012. That Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has upheld the order o...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Unimax Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), involving the same issue. 2. The appellants are 100% Export Oriented Unit and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs. They were entitled to the refund of such Cenvat credit inasmuch as they were not making any DTA clearances and were not in apposition to utilize the said credit. Accordingly, the appellants filed two refund applications for refund of Rs.1,47,543/- and Rs.1,43,482/- in respect of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 for the period from April, 2008 to September 2008 and October, 2008 to March, 2009 respectively. 3. The said refund claims were decided by the Deputy Commissioner, who took note of the fact that appellant has placed on record self attested shipping bills or bills of exports duly signed by the officer of Customs, thus evidencing export having taken place. The appellants had also fi...
Tag this Judgment!New JaIn Godowns, Budaun and Another Vs. Ito, Budaun and Another
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: 1. This is Assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 against the order dated 24.03.2009, passed by the Ld. CIT, Moradabad, enhancing the income of the assessee, as assessed by the Assessing Officer at ` 86,460/-, to ` 8,14,253/-. 2. The assessee Partnership Firm came into existence on 01.01.2005, vide Partnership Deed executed on 20.11.2005. It comprised of three partners, Smt. Chhama Jain, Smt. Manka Jain and Shri Jaideep Jain, having 1/3 share each. As per the Partnership Deed, the said parties had agreed to carry on business of constructing godowns and renting them to the Government and other parties and earn rental income and any other business deemed suitable for the firm. In the return of income filed by the firm, a loss of ` 3,804/- was declared. Vide Order dated 08.05.2007, passed u/s 143 (3) of the IT Act, the assessment of the assessee was completed at an income of ` 86,460/- by the Assessing Officer, on satisfying himself regarding the income ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashirwad Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 11.10.2011 in Appeal No. 234/10-11/MZR for AY 2006-07. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing to set off unabsorbed depreciation relating to AY 2000-01 and 2001-02 against the income from other sources by ignoring the order dated 29.04.2011 of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench "C" New Delhi in ITA No.4983/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT, Circle-I, Muzaffarnagar vs M/s HRJ Steels(P) Ltd. Muzaffarnagar where it was held that amount of current depreciation for AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 which cannot be set off shall be carried forward for a maximum period of 8 assessment years and to be set off only against the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession. 2. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) be s...
Tag this Judgment!Monnet Industries Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Dcit New Delhi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: 1. This is Assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 against the order dated 11.05.2012, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi, taking the following grounds:- "1. That the order u/s 250(6) passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in Law, wrong on facts and against the principles of natural justice . 2. (a) The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs.2,16,17,150/- claimed by the appellant company under the head 'Bad Debts Written Off' on the ground that the aforesaid claim for bad debts remained unsubstantiated. (b) The Hon'ble CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance out of bad debts on the grounds that bad debts remain unsubstantiated whereas the necessary documents in support of the claim were duly filed during appellate proceedings alongwith application under Rule 46A and the additional evidence was not accepted by the Hon'ble CIT( A) on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause for not filing the additional evidence. Th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Neo Sack Ltd. (Export Divn, Pithampur and Others Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, are under:- 1.1 M/s. Neo Sack Ltd. (Export Division), Pithampur (hereinafter referred to as NSLED) are manufacturers of Polypropylene/HDPE Woven sacks, PP/HDPE fabrics, Boxbags, Jumbo bags and Raschael bags chargeable to central excise duty under chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. While Shri Sunil Trivedi is the Managing Director of NSLED looking after day-to-day work as well as overall working of the company, Shri V.P. Agarwal and Shri Ashok Kularni are their Commercial Officer and Excise Manager respectively. M/s. Parental Drugs (I) Ltd., India, (hereinafter referred to as PDIL) are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products IV fluids, irrigation solutions, tablets etc. and Shri Vinod Gupta is the Director of PDIL. 1.2. On receipt of an intelligence about duty evasion by NSLED by adopting various modus operandi, like clearance of goods under parallel invoices without payment of duty or under invoices with fake ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Sharma Vs. V.V. Gujral and ors.
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:30. h January, 2014. + RFA2502013, CMs No.8072/2013 (for stay) & 8073/2013 (u/O41R-27 CPC). PUSHPA SHARMA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, Adv. Versus V.V. GUJRAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija & Ms. Mahima Bahl, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 14th February, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge (Central)-08, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.33/2004 filed by the respondents against the appellant) of ejectment after determination of tenancy of the appellant from Shop No.P-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi and of recovery from the appellant of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st November, 2003 till the delivery of possession, with interest at 9% per annum.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned and s...
Tag this Judgment!