Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-05-2004
Reported in : (2004)89ITD259(Delhi)
1. The instant miscellaneous application u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the applicant / assessee against the order of I.T.A.T. dated 13.3.2002 passed by the learned Vice President of I.T.A.T as Third Member and consequent order of I.T.A.T. Bench 'D', New Delhi dated 31.3.2002 which was passed for giving effect to the order of the learned Third Member.2. Shri P.N. Monga and Shri. Manu Monga appeared for the applicant whereas Shri. B. L. Kardam, Ld. Sr. D.R. represented the Department.3. The assessee moved this miscellaneous application on 17.5.2000 against the order of I.T.A.T. It also filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.1.2004 directed I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench 'D' to dispose off the miscellaneous application. Since the appeal was heard by learned Third Member, the Hon'ble President of I.T.A.T. constituted a Special Bench for the hearing and disposal of the present mis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-28-2004
Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC480
1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 to the C.T. Scan Machine imported by M/s. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. 2 Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported one Computerised Axial Tomography Scanner and a spare C.T.X-Ray Tube and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. under Bill of Entry dated 24-7-91; that a show cause notice dated 17-9-98 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs to show cause as to why goods imported by them should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakh and appropriate duty and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakh on the Appellants On the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions specified in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ARBLR522(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT163; 2005(80)DRJ398
Anil Kumar, J. 1.This appeal is against the order dated 19th October,2001of the Learned Single judge allowing applications for condensation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of deceased Karta of an HUF and another defendant, who was also a coparcener and where other defendants were the HUF and other coparceners, one of them being also the son of deceased karta.2.The respondents had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 against M/S K.D.Churiwala and sons HUF through its Karta M.P.Churiwala who was defendant no.6 in the petition. Besides the said two defendants, the other members and coparceners of said HUF, Shri K.P.Churiwala, Mr.R.K.Churiwala, Mr. Sanjay Churiwala and Mr. Nikhil Churiwala were also imp leaded as defendants in the petition. Shri Sanjay Churiwala is the son of Shri M.P.Churiwala, deceased karta.3.The addresses of all the defendants in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 were given as 32-J, New Road, Alipore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-30-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi326; 112(2004)DLT549
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi in Case No. 10/2003. Appellant's main grievance is against the direction of the Copyright Board directing the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory license under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. 2. It is alleged that the appellant is one of the leading music companies engaged in the production and/or acquisition of rights in sound recordings. According to the appellant, through keen perception of ever changing consumer practices, infrastructural investment, technological upgradations and a skilled, cohesive work force, and an aggressive commitment towards quality, companies such as the appellant play a vital role in creating the music which then become available for the mass consumption.3. According to the appellant its most valuable asset is the copyrights in cinematographic films and sound recordings. The music of the appellant is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2004
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT562
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay in re-filing the petition stands condoned.Arb.P.No.28/041. This is a petition under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') filed by Prasar Bharati for appointment of an independent arbitrator.2. This petition again raises the questions which repeatedly arise during proceedings for the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6)(c) of the Act. The petitioner had entered into an Accreditation Agreement dated 5th June, 1997 with the respondent by which the respondent was required to book advertisements for the programmes telecast by the petitioner and the respondent was allowed a commission @ 15% of the advertisement revenue collected by it and rest of the revenue was to be remitted back to the petitioner. Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'5. In the event of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-15-2004
Reported in : 2004(29)PTC72(Del)
R.C. Chopra, J.1. In is No. 10928/2002, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs seek an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale the tooth brushes which infringe the plaintiffs registered design No. 170554. Vide IAs No. 4541/2003 and 6572/2003 under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC the defendant seeks vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction issued vide orders dated 26th November 2002.2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and accounts regarding profits on account of infringement of its registered design No. 170554 in respect of their tooth brush Annexure B. The plaintiff No. 1 is a Company organized under the laws of Germany and was earlier known as Linger + Fischer GmbH. Pursuant to a change in its name, it became Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GmbH and thereafter in pursuance of a merger its name was challenged to Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare GmbH & Co. KG, i.e. the plaintiff No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-05-2004
Reported in : 112(2004)DLT725; 2004(76)DRJ147; 2005(2)SLJ497(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Petitioners challenge the order dated 21.8.2003 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India as also the order dated 27.8.2003 issued by the Government of NCT Delhi to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and all heads of department/local/autonomous bodies/PSUs under the Government of Delhi.2. Order dated 21.8.2003 reads as under:-U.14011/128/2001 Delhi, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRSGOVERNMENT OF INDIANew Delhi, the 21stAugust, 2003.To,Sh. B.V. SelvarajSecretary (Services)Government of NCT of DelhiNew Delhi.Sub: Reservation for Scheduled Caste for recruitment to civil posts under the Government of NCT of Delhi.Sir, I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Services-III Department)'s letter No. F.19(10)/2001/S.III/2286 dated the 22nd August, 2001 regarding the subject mentioned above and to say that the instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M NO. 7/2/55/SCT dated the 14th October, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2004
Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)236
1. These appeals by the Revenue and the assessees for asst. yrs.1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 involve common points and, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.Grounds raised by the Revenue in their appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 are as follows : "1. The learned CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances has erred in deleting the disallowance of royalty under Section 35A or 40A(2) amounting to Rs. 5,27,35,429. 2. The learned CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,73,440 on account of deferred revenue expenditure." "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of Rs. 3,19,553 on account of prior period expenses is unjustified, illegal and unwarranted. The expenses debited to the P&L a/c pertain to the. relevant previous year only. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,19,553 deserves to be deleted in total. 2. That on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-29-2004
Reported in : (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)1038
1. ITA No. 2245/Del/1999 is an appeal by the assessee and ITA No.2143/Del/1999 is an appeal by the Revenue, and both the appeals are directed against the order of CIT(A)-I, Meerut, dt. 26th Feb., 1999, relating to the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee, i.e., ITA No.2245/Del/1999 for consideration.3. Grounds No. 1.1 to 1.4 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee read as follows : "1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 77,16,120 being advertisement expenses debited as deferred revenue expenditure in the books of account. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure in question does not pertain to the year. 1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the double addition of Rs. 29,51,509 being the deferred revenue expenditure written off in the books of account and added back by the appellant in its return of income. 1.4 That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-28-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Delhi236
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners are holding a perpetual lease in their names executed by the L&DO; for shops in Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi. Bhagat Singh Market was earlier in an area under the control of New Delhi Municipal Committee, now, under the jurisdiction of New Delhi Municipal Council.2. The lease deeds being identical, the one in favor of petitioner in WP(C) No.427/1977 Sh.K.S. Bhati was referred to during arguments.3. The lease deed so referred to was agreed by the counsel for the parties as being representative of all other lease deeds executed in favor of other petitioners as well.4. The lease deed is dated 31.12.1969. Shop no.24 has been demised in favor of K.S. Bhati for a period of 99 years. The perpetual lease deed records that the government has constructed double storyed building in Bhagat Singh Market consisting of 160 shops on the ground floor and flats on the upper floor. While conveying shop No.24 to K.S. Bhati, it is stated that the shop admeasures 387 Sq...
Tag this Judgment!