Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)558
1. IT(SS)A No. 411/Del/2004 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS)A No. 45/Del/2005 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dt. 30th Nov., 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/2004 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 (P) 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 po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(89)DRJ730
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. In the year 1981, Sh. Ram Kishan Dass Along with other plaintiffs filed a suit against Shri Banarsi Lal Suri and other defendants for winding up of the affairs/accounts of the partnership firm viz. 'Rachna Enterprises (India) Regd.'. It was stated that plaintiffs and defendants have been carrying on the business in partnership under the name and style of 'Rachna Enterprises (India) Regd. in terms of partnership deed dated 8.8.77. Sh. Mela Ram was one of the partners who unfortunately died and no fresh partnership deed was executed between the parties. According to the plaintiffs, the share of the partners are as follows:Name Share in profits Share in loss Shri Ram Kishan Das P-1 7% 8%Shri Mahesh Kumar P-2 5% NilSmt Laxmi Devi P-3 12% 13%Shri Banarsi Lal Suri D-1 9% 9%Shri Joginder Paul Suri D-2 9% 7%Shri Raman Suri D-3 8% 8%Master Aman Suri D-5 8% NilShri Ram Sarup Agarwal D-6 12% 13%Kumari Ballo Devi D-7 7% 8%Shri Vishnu Kumar D-8 7% 8%Agarwal Rajan Suri D-9 8% 8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23-7-1997 against the order of the learned assessing officer being Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dated 27-6-1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Honble President, ITAT for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, Such other materials or information as are available with the assessing officer and relatable to such evidence appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1-7-1995." 2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)103ITD389(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23rd July, 1997 against the order of the learned AO being Asstt. CIT, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dt. 27th June, 1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the IT Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Hon'ble President, Tribunal for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, 'such other materials or information as are available with the AO and relatable to such evidence' appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995.2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee filed revised "Summarized ground of appeal" on 8th Dec., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)293ITR68(Delhi)
1. These are ten appeals, six filed by the assessee and four filed by the Revenue. Out of them, four appeals by the assessee and all the four appeals by the Revenue are cross-appeals for asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 whereas the remaining two appeals of the assessee are for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99. Since the issues involved in these ten appeals are common and interrelated, the same are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in USA (hereinafter referred to as 'Sheraton'). It is engaged in the business of providing various services related to hotels and provide such services to many hotels in the United States as well as other countries around the world including India. In India, it has been providing the services to M/s. ITC Hotels Ltd., M/s. ITC Ltd. (Hotel Division), etc. on the terms and conditions stipulated in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT393; 2007(207)ELT482(Del); (2007)6VST444(Delhi)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These five writ petitions filed by an association of silk and textiles traders in Delhi and its members challenge the constitutional validity of the following notifications:(i) Notification No. F.4 (i)/99-Fin(g) dated 31.3.1999 issued by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Finance General Department specifying the rate of local sales tax payable under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, as amended by Delhi Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1997, as 3 paise in a rupee in respect of silk fabric.(ii) Notification Nos. F.4(52)/99/Fin(G)/(I) and (II) dated 15.1.2000 issued by the Sales Tax Department, GNCTD, including silk fabrics in the First Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 and levying sales tax @ 12 paise in the rupee on silk fabrics and garments made of silk thereof.(iii) Notification No. F.4(75)/99-Fin(G)/2095 dated 31.3.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, as amended by the Delhi Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 138(2007)DLT402; [2007]292ITR49(Delhi)
1. In these writ petitions the Order disposing of the Objections filed by KLM Dutch Airlines ('assessed' for short) to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings has been challenged; a prayer has also been made for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any like Order quashing the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act [for short 'IT Act'] dated 8.3.2006; and for quashing the re-assessment proceedings initiated in pursuance to the Notice dated 8.3.2006. The assailed Notice pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2001-2002 in WP(C) 16576-77 and to AY 2003-2004 in WP(C) No. 16574-75. On a perusal of the impugned Notice it appears that the Assistant Director of Income Tax [for short Assessing Officer(AO)] intends to 'reassess' the income of the Petitioner/assessed inter alias since the word 'assessed' has been scored out. This is noteworthy since avowedly no assessment has in fact been framed.2. The assessed had filed its Return of Income under Section 139 of the IT Act on 31....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(94)DRJ681
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus to the respondents 'to give appeal effect to the order of the Tribunal and grant refund to the petitioner along with interest thereon till the date of grant of refund'.Background facts2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of fast moving consumer products. The petitioner itself did not have any employee other than a company secretary. The administrative services relating to marketing, finance, human resource, secretarial services, etc., were provided by Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Limited ('GSKCH'), a widely held public limited company.3. The agreement between GSKCH and the petitioner was that the petitioner would reimburse the costs incurred by GSKCH for providing the various services to the petitioner plus 5 per cent, (referred to as 'cross charges'). Since in the said agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT35; 2007(94)DRJ441; (2007)7VST79(Delhi)
1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is for the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order staying the recovery of the entire demand of the impugned tax till the disposal of the Petitioner's Appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner-IV, Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of Delhi.2. The facts in brief are that for Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04, vide Assessment Order dated 30.3.2005 a Demand of Rs. 5,80,09,272/- under the Local Act and Rs. 9,88,41,922/- under the Central Act stood assessed. After a Review, the Demand was reduced to Rs. 4,30,19,815/- under the Local Act and Rs. 2,79,43,711/- under the Central Act. The Review Order was appealed against before the First Appellate Authority who passed an Order under Section 43(5) of the repealed Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for the sake of brevity 'DST Act') directing the Appellant/Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4.20 crores under the DST Act and Rs. 14.78 lacs under the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT578
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions, and the connected appeals against interim orders, is to the constitutional validity of:(a) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ('BOCW Act'). (b) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 ('Cess Act'). (c) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998 ('Central Rules').(d) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 ('Cess Rules').(e) The Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 ('Delhi Rules').2. The challenge to the statutes is by contractors who have entered into construction contracts. They are either in the process of executing the contract or have completed it. The contracts are with various government departments agencies or public sector undertakings (PSUs) for...
Tag this Judgment!