1
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-22-2006
1. M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited filed Bill of Entry No. 105274 dated 06.11.1992 for import of one Toshiba make TCT 300S Whole Body CT Scanning machine. It was cleared on 12.11.1992 without payment of duty on the strength of customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988. Show cause notice dated 24.5.1997 was issued to M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited that they were required to submit the installation certificate from Directorate General of Health Services within a reasonable period and no such certificate was produced by them demanding duty of Rs. 79,11,176/-. This show cause notice is still said to pending for decision.2. To check the fulfillment of other conditions prescribed under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988, the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Haryana conducted an audit of this Hospital on 04.10.1996 and submitted their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-29-2006
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)607
1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A), Dehradun, dt. 29th Sept., 2005 for asst. yrs.1999-2000, 2002-03 and 2001-02.The assessee has also filed cross-objection in the asst. yr. 1999-2000. Following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Revenue: (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 51,25,370 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd. (2) The, order of learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored. (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 52,85,620 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-13-2006
Reported in : I(2007)BC126
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a dishonoured cheque dated 20.3.2002 which was for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Indian Oversees Bank. In the complaint filed by the complainant, it is alleged that when the cheque was dishonoured, a legal notice dated 31.5.2002 was sent by the Registered AD/UPC by the complainant through their Counsel to the accused persons/petitioners herein, calling upon them to make payment within 15 days after receipt of this notice. The petitioners herein after receiving the summons in the said case moved application for their discharge which has been dismissed by the learned M.M. and the present petition is filed challenging the summoning order/quashing of the complaint.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after the dishonour of the cheque, respondent had served notice dated 29.4.2002 intimating about the dishonour of the said cheque and calling up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2006
Reported in : 134(2006)DLT49; (2007)2LLJ350Del
Gita Mittal, J.1. These applications raised questions as to the jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief to a workman on his application seeking grant of wages during the pendency of the management's challenge to industrial awards in favor of the workman directing his reinstatement into service. Inasmuch as counsels have urged identical issues of law, these applications are being taken up for decision together. A composite view with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court covering different aspects of this principal question has been required to be considered. Before proceeding to consider the individual fact situation and relief sought in these three applications, it would be appropriate to consider the general principles of law which have been evolved by the courts.2. The issue of permissibility of grant to interim relief to a workman in the nature of wages in petitions before either the Apex Court or the High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-2006
Reported in : 130(2006)DLT309; (2007)ILLJ96Del
Gita Mittal, J.CM No. 11937/2004 (filed by respondent Nos. 2-21, 24, 26-32, 34, 35, 37-38) and CM No. 14302/2004 (filed by respondent No. 23 Shri Triloki Nath Sharma) 1. The writ petition was filed in July, 2004 and by an order passed on 14th July, 2004, this Court had stayed the operation of the award dated 27th April, 2004 subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court. The respondents/applicants in this application are claiming to be unemployed workmen in whose favor the award dated 27th April, 2004 has been passed and are praying for grant of interim wages during the pendency of the writ petition with effect from the date of the award. 2. The petitioner has filed a reply challenging the claim of the workmen and urging that they are disentitled to the grant of the interim relief on various technical reasons including a challenge to the correctness of the affidavit filed by the workman and also on the merits of the controvers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-27-2006
Reported in : (2007)103ITD403(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of the order of CIT (Appeals)-II, Dehradun, passed on 11-11-2004. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldwani, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14-11-2002. The revenue has taken up only one substantive ground of appeal to the effect that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption under Section 11 to the assessee, which was found to be existing not for the charitable purpose, but for the purpose of profit. Therefore, it was prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Income Tax Officer may be restored.2. From the order of the Income Tax Officer, it is seen that the assessee bad shown gross total income of Rs. 2,72,49,129. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,42,99,578 was applied under Section 11 towards the charitable purpose and the balance sum of Rs. 29,49,551 was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-19-2006
Reported in : 135(2006)DLT453
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The two civil revision petitions pertain to different portions of the same property bearing No. 4315, Gali Bhaironwali, Jogiwara, Delhi and arise from two different impugned orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller (for short, 'ARC') in respect of the petitions filed for bona fide requirement by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act').2. The first petition C.R.P. No. 49/1989 pertains to one room and kitchen on the ground floor. An eviction petition was filed on 17.10.1980 and was dismissed on 14.11.1985. The aggrieved landlord has filed the civil revision petition.3. The other petition C.R.P. No. 337/2000 was filed on 23.10.1984 and there were certain subsequent developments as a result of which by an amendment on 05.10.1987, these subsequent developments were brought on record. The eviction petition was allowed on 02.11.1999 and the subject matter is a hall, kitchen and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2006
Reported in : AIR2006Delhi325; 127(2006)DLT188; 2006(88)DRJ31
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9th November, 2004 has referred the following questions of law to be answered by a larger bench:-1. Whether an appeal would lie under Rule 4 of the Rules against any order made by the Registrar under Rule 3 on an application/matter against which no appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, Delhi High Court Act, 1966 or the Letters Patent of this Court', and2. If the answer to above question is in negative, whether Rule 4 needs to be retained in the Rules or needs to be suitably amended so as to bring the said rule in confirmity with the Code and Act2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd v. Motorola Inc. : AIR2005SC514 . It was submitted that in view of the said decision, appeal under Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules (Original Side), 1967 was maintainable even if no appeal has been provided und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2006
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR1061]; (2006)IIILLJ540Del
Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of Plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the defendant's application under Order 39 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure to vacate the interim order dated 15th October, 2005 whereby by the defendant was restrained from using the information and data regarding the wealth of the customers of the plaintiff bank and customers' wealth management operations and wealth View program/operations of the plaintiff's bank.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant seeking inter-alia a restrain against the defendant from using or disclosing any information and trade secrets relating to the business and operations of the plaintiff and to solicit or induce any of the customers of the plaintiff especially those who are part of the wealth management operation and/or wealth View programme and fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-04-2006
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!