Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ693
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioners, M/s A.B. Bofors, S.P. Hinduja, G.P. Hinduja and P.P. Hinduja, have through these petitions challenged the impugned order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby he has charged them for having entered into criminal conspiracy with the public servants late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Win Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Bofors' President Matin Ardbo to cheat the Government of India inasmuch as that they had agreed to do or caused to be done illegal acts or acts which are legal by illegal means to cause wrongful loss to the Government of India to the tune of SEK 8410.66 million i.e. Rupees 64 crores for the award of the contract for supply of 410 guns of 155mm and by deceiving the Government of India by fraudulent representation that the said gun and gun system was better in quality and cheaper in price and that no agent or middlemen would be used in the negotiations for the contract and they would reduce the price of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT547
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. petitioners are all persons who have been charged with theft of electricity and the common question which arises for consideration is the tariff which will be applicable to such cases of theft.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to consider the history of certain legislations and enactments relating to the supply and distribution of electricity. The first enactment is The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Act of 1910') which created the basic framework for electric supply in India. Subsequently, The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'The Supply Act of 1948') was enacted to create the State Electricity Boards, which were responsible for arranging the supply of electricity in the States. The tariffs used to be fixed by these State Electricity Boards, but it was found that there was difficulty in a professional and independent manner of administration and fixation of the tari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)681
1. These two appeals by the assessee raise identical issues against the order dt. 12th Jan., 2000, of learned CWT(A), New Delhi, as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the decision of learned CWT(A) in confirming the jurisdiction under Section 17 of learned AO is ab initio improper and illegal inasmuch as the notice under Section 17 has been issued for assessment and not reassessment, and whereas the appellant has already been assessed under Section 16(1) for the relevant assessment year, 2. That the learned CWT(A) has not passed any order regarding 1st ground of appeal taken before CWT(A) which is being reproduced herebelow : 3. That, the learned AO has passed order under Section 16(5) whereas our counsel had appeared on dt. 5th Jan., 1998, which clearly proves that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the following acts of the authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Del)435; 122(2005)DLT370; 2005(83)DRJ102; [2005]278ITR401(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Whether the Maxim Audi Alteram Partem, if at all and to what extent is applicable to the proceedings before the Assessing officer while passing a direction as contemplated under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act (for short `the Act).2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the necessary facts are : The petitioner claims to be part of Yum Group which was incorporated on 19th March, 1994 as a Private Limited Company in the name and style of KFC India Holding Private Limited w.e.f. 28th August, 2002 commonly it is known as Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. which globally operates and runs restaurants under the brand name of `KFC' and `Pizza Hut'. The petitioner-company is regularly assessed to income-tax from the assessing year 1995-96 onwards. The petitioner has five sources of income i.e. (i) initial fee (ii) continuing fee, (iii) SCM fee, (iv) territorial fee and (v) stewardship fee. Petitioner has been following its mercantile system of accounting in carrying on it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)283ITR28(Delhi)
1. These four appeals pertain to asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2000-2001. Appeal in ITA No. 5252/Del/1998 is Revenue's appeal filed on 3rd Nov., 1998 against the order of the learned CIT(A) XVI, New Delhi dt. 4th Aug., 1998 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1995-96. Appeal in ITA No. 3805/Del/1999 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 24th Sept., 1999 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dt.4th June, 1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1994-95. Appeal in ITA No.1786/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 10th April, 2000 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 17th Jan., 2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97, and the appeal in ITA No.4670/Del/2003 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 14th Oct., 2003 against the order of the learned CIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT550; 2005(85)DRJ674
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seek a quashing order, in respect of the sanction of the building plans for alteration/ conversion of the existing building into a multiplex, mini cinema-cum-commercial complex at Savitri Cinema point Greater Kailash-II. This sanction was issued in favor of the 7th respondent. A consequential direction to restrain that respondent from raising construction and orders to quash the permission granted by various authorities imp leaded as respondents have also been claimed.2. The first petitioner is a registered Society; it claims to represent respondents of the Greater Kailash-II; the other petitioners are residents of that locality. Greater Kailash-II is spread over an area of about 3.40 acres containing 1680 residential plots of various sixs. It's estimated population is about 15,000. It is claimed that there are approximately 8500 vehicles in the entire colony. The petitioners have annexed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(87)DRJ108
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the leading writ petitions No. 9427/05 and 4753/02 are taken up for final hearing as all these writ petitions raise a common question of law.2. The issue involved in these group of petitions is whether in an order passed under Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act(hereinafter referred to as the `BSF Act') in dealing with appeals against the orders of Security Force Court and the Summary Security Force Court and its confirmation, reasons are required to be given. Section 117 of the BSF Act reads as follows:-117. Remedy against order, finding or sentence of Security Force Court.--(1) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by any order passed by any Security Force Court may present a petition to the officer or authority empowered to confirm any finding or sentence of such Security Force Court, and the confirming authority may take such steps as may be considered necessary to satisfy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(Del)550; [2006]283ITR212(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 10.2.2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') issued by the Income Tax Officer in respect of the Assessment Year 2001-2002. It is also directed against the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Income Tax Officer in response to the objections to the said notice of 10.2.2005 filed by the assessed (Petitioner No. 1). By virtue of this order dated 17.8.2005, the assessed's objections have been overruled and its request to drop proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the said Act have been rejected and the reassessment has been directed to be proceeded with. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that two issues arise for our consideration in this writ petition. The first issue relates to the maintainability of the writ petition for quashing a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. IT(SS) A. No. 411/Del/04 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS) A.No. 45/Del/05 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dated 30/11/2004. They are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First we shall take up the Assessee's appeal i.e. IT(SS) A. No: 411/Del/04 for consideration. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal by the Assessee are as follows. The Assessee is a company. M/s HCL Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s HCLCL'), M/s Shiv Nadar Investment Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SNIPL') and the assessee company were promoters of a company by name, M/s HCL Consulting Ltd. The main objects of these three companies were making investments in various companies. The investments are in the form of contribution to share capital of various companies. They promote companies and hold shares of companies promoted. The shares are held by these companies in order to have power ...
Tag this Judgment!