Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI67. + ST.APPL. 3/2015 & CM No.345/2015 TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. .... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.P. Devnath, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI ...Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose with Mr. Rhishabh Jaitley, Advocates. AND ST.APPL. 4/2015 & CM No.348/2015 TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.P. Devnath, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI ST.APPL. Nos. 3 & 4 of 2015 Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose with Mr. Rhishabh Jaitley, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 15.07.2015 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common Order No.ATVAT/2014/3015-3020 dated 21st August/1st September 2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi (AT) in Appeal No.604-605/ATVAT/09-10 and Appeal No.397...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI67. + ST.APPL. 3/2015 & CM No.345/2015 TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. .... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.P. Devnath, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI ...Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose with Mr. Rhishabh Jaitley, Advocates. AND ST.APPL. 4/2015 & CM No.348/2015 TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.P. Devnath, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI ST.APPL. Nos. 3 & 4 of 2015 Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose with Mr. Rhishabh Jaitley, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 15.07.2015 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common Order No.ATVAT/2014/3015-3020 dated 21st August/1st September 2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi (AT) in Appeal No.604-605/ATVAT/09-10 and Appeal No.397...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(Del)202; 152(2008)DLT620; 2008(106)DRJ319
S. Muralidhar, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ( CrPC ) two of the accused persons in a criminal complaint, CC No. 444 of 2005 titled Kamal Khanna v. Sidharth Ray and Ors. pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi seek the quashing of the said complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto. The two petitioners are K.C. Palaniswamy and R. Karunanithi. The petitions by two other accused, R. Athappan and Gopinath Athapppan, stood withdrawn by them in terms of the order dated 21st February 2006 passed by this Court. The cause title of the present case accordingly reflects this change.2. The aforementioned complaint was filed by Kamal Khanna, Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 49 (4), New Delhi against Data Access (India) Limited (Company) [arrayed as Accused No. 16] and 16 other persons who were described as Directors or Senior Officers of the said Company. This complaint was filed under Section 279B read with S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal of the assessee emanates from the order of the CIT(Appeals), Faridabad, passed on 12.09.2005. The corresponding order of assessment was framed by the Deputy CIT, Central Circle, Faridabad, on 26.2.1999 under the provisions of Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Ground No. 1 is residuary in nature, which was not argued by the learned Counsel. Ground No. 1 is to the effect that the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer regarding the re-opening of the assessment Under Section 147 of the Act. This ground was not pressed by the learned Counsel during the course of hearing before us. Therefore, these grounds are dismissed.3. Ground No. 2 is to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making additions or disallowances on the issues which were not the subject matter of the reasons recorded fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi758
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) The short question arising in this appeal for determination is whether the imposition souhght to be recovered was illegally made or not and as to from whom the recovery can be made. The present appellant pleaded in the course of the plaint that he was a displaced person and the concerned property was allotted to him on rental basis on 11th of November, 1953. It is nowhere disclosed as to who was the officer who made the allotment. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it was asserted that the property in suit was allottable property within the meaning of the Act. The reference was to the Act mentioned in paragraph I of the plaint and there Act 44 of 1954 was referred to (Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.). After making those assertions in the plaint the plaintiff assailed the notice dated the 3rd of December, 1966, contending that the imposition was illegal because the property belonged to the Government. (2) I have seen Exhibit P. 2, the origina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2009)222CTR(Del)526; [2009]177TAXMAN434(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3224/Del/2005 in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. Before the Tribunal the Revenue as well as the assessee, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26.04.2005 [hereinafter referred to in short as the 'CIT(A)'].2. The Revenue being aggrieved has preferred the present appeal and proposed the following questions of law for consideration of this Court:(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing deduction of export commission of Rs. 10,07,22,625/- to the assessee Under Section 37(1) of the Act?(b) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law when it allowed deduction to the assessee of export commission ignoring the relevant facts recorded by the Assessing Off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Del)537
ORDERMISS MOKSH MAHAJAN, A.M. :These two appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the orders passed under ss. 154 and 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) for asst. yr. 1989-90. As both are interconnected, they are disposed of by a single order after consolidating them.2. Shri R. Ganesan appeared on behalf of the assessed and Shri M. S. Syali, standing counsel, represented the Department.3. Briefly put, the facts are that the assessed filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 30,95,450. The return was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and the income determined was at Rs. 31,14,600. This was after including an amount of Rs. 19,150 the depreciation claimed at hundred per cent on the machinery. Subsequently, the AO modified the income under s. 154 of the Act by restricting deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act to Rs. 13,83,30,602 as against Rs. 15,06,77,328 claimed by the assessee. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. The assessed is aggrieved against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(82)ELT33TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, are aggrieved by the order dated 7-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The facts, briefly, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soft drink concentrates. They sell concentrates to various bottlers who produce beverage products out of the concentrates bearing the brand name of the appellants. The appellants have entered into agreement with the bottlers by which they have, inter alia, allowed the bottlers to use their brand name on the beverage products, manufactured by the bottlers out of the concentrate manufactured and supplied to them by the appellants. This royalty is payable @ 2.75 per cent of the maximum retail price of the beverage and is payable for each bottle of the beverage despatched by the bottlers from their plant. The period in dispute in this case is from 1-9-1992 to 31-3-1993. The appellants filed price lists of their product during the relevant period. In answer to a quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)6SOT562(Delhi)
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-1-2002 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99.Following grounds of appeal have been preferred - "1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to hold that the loss of Rs. 30,68,331 incurred by the assessee on the purchase and sale of shares, where delivery of shares were taken, as speculation loss, contrary to the provisions of sections 28 to 43.2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to apply the Explanation to section 73, which is limited to section 73 only, to treat the business loss in shares as speculation loss.3. That the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly applied the Explanation to section 73 to the facts of the case, and has wrongly interpreted and applied the decision of the Calcutta High Court in 192 ITR 365 and section 73. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) being contrary to law be vacated." In brief, the facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DATE OF DECISION:3. d DECEMBER, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 2726/2013 M/S SWASTIK POLYVINYLS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate versus B M GUPTA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Rajiv Rajan Prasadam, Advocate WITH + CRL.M.C. 2730/2013 M/S SWASTIK POLYVINYLS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate versus B M GUPTA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Rajiv Rajan Prasadam, Advocate AND + CRL.M.C. 2731/2013 M/S SWASTIK POLYVINYLS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate versus B M GUPTA & ORS. Through CRL.M.Cs. 2726/2013 and 2730-31/2013 ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Three criminal miscellaneous petitions bearing Nos. Crl. M.C. Nos. 2726/2013, 2730/2013 and 2731/2013 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed for quashing the order dated 10th April, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge where...
Tag this Judgment!