Delhi Court June 1992 Judgments

Moti Lal Sharma Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)42ITD653(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -VI, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1987-88.2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against treatment of amount of Rs. 21 lakhs received by the assessee from his employers Shri K.P. Gupta and Shri M.P. Gupta of Indore as compensation in the nature of commission thereby treating the same as income from other sources.3. The assessee is an individual. His source of income are salary, income from house property, business income from M/s. Ruby Sales Corporation, interest and dividends. The assessment of the assessee was completed under Section 143(1) on 29-9-1987. However, the same was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 on 19-3-1990. In response to that notice, the assessee filed return on 24-1-1991 declaring an income of Rs. 1,69,153. During the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs as und...

S. Parameswaran Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Since Appeal Nos. 558 and 559 of 1986 are inter-connected, they are being decided by a common order. 2. These appeals arise against a common adjudication order No. DD/MAS/190 and 191 of 1986 dated 23-6-1986 whereby a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on Associated Travel Agency (P.) Ltd. for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1973 ('the Act') and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on Shri S. Parameswaran for violation of section 9(1)(a) were imposed and the sum of Rs. 99,800 involved in the contravention was confiscated under section 63 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the premises of Associated Travel Agency (P.) Ltd. were searched on 13-8-1984 pursuant to an information that the company has received a payment of Rs. 1 lakh under the instructions of a person resident outside India. Indian currency of Rs. 99,800 and certain other documents were seized. Shri G. Singarvelu. an employee of Associated Travel Agency (P.) Ltd. ga...

R. Murugesan Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. As Appeal Nos. 90 and 91 of 1987 are inter-connected, they are being disposed of by a common order. These appeals were fixed for hearing at Madras on 5-6-1992. While none appeared for the appellants, Shri V.S. Thiageswaran, ALA, appeared for the respondent. The appellants, however, have sent their written submissions requesting the Board to decide the matters on the basis thereof. The counsel for the respondent submitted that as the findings of the Adjudicating Officer are based on voluntary statements of the appellants, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that pursuant to an information that one Shri Munisamy (appellant in Appeal No. 91 of 1987) had received a sum of Rs. 20,000 from Shri Murugesan, officers of the Enforcement Directorate interrogated Shri Murugesan (appellant in Appeal No. 90 of 1987) on 17-10-1986 who admitted before the officers that he had paid Rs. 20,000 to Shri Munisamy under the instructions from one Shri Srinivas...

Sylvania Laxman Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT195; 1992(23)DRJ355; 1993(41)ECC100

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the show cause notices dated 5th June, 1990, 21st June. 1990 and 28th June, 1990 issued by the collector. Central Excise, New Delhi, under section 11-A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which 'seeks to raise the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 62,59,579.75. (2) By order dated 19th July, 1990 the writ petition was admitted and the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices dated 5.6.1990. 21.6.1990 and 28.6.1990 were stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. (3) The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of Gls lamps, electric bulbs and fluorescent lighting tubes which are covered by Chapter 85 of the Schedule annexed to the Act and classifiable under subheading 8539.00. Vide notification No. 67/83CE dated 1st March, 1983 vacuum and gas filled bulbs not exceeding 60 watts are subject to nil duty. it has been alleged in the impugned notice...

Frick India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ70; 1993(41)ECC247; 1992RLR495

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 31st March,1986 issued by the Collector, Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which seeks to raise the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs-4,45,19,321.17 (2) By order dated 15th December,1986 the writ petition was admitted but while declining the stay of proceedings this Court observed that it was open to the petitioner to approach this Court for necessary directions regarding the collection of tax demanded, in case they find it necessary.(3) During the pendency of the writ petition, adjudication order dated 15th September, 1987 was passed by the Principal Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate, Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT). An application for dispensing with the amount of pre-deposit was also filed. While disposing ...

Alpine Industries Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT123; 1992(23)DRJ349; 1993(41)ECC249; 1995(78)ELT15(Del)

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 31st March, 1987 issued by the collector. Central Excise under section 11-A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') which seeks to raise the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 26,33.967.40. (2) By order dated 12th May, 1988 the writ petition was admitted but while declining to grant stay of proceedings, this Court ordered that if any demand is raised. it will not be recovered without obtaining orders from this Court. (3) During the course of arguments we were informed by the learned counsel for (he petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the show cause notice, the Principal Collector of Central Excise passed the adjudication order and an appeal against the aforesaid order has already been filed before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT') Mr. Madan Lokur, t...

Sayed Ahmed Mizammil Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal arises out of the adjudication order No. Adj. 65/AD/NSK/ B/87 dated 6-3-1987 whereby the Adjudication Officer confiscated US $ 500 (in travellers' cheques) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 on the appellant for contravention of section 8(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The records indicate that the appellant has deposited the penalty. Shri V.S. Thiageswaran, ALA. appearing for the respondent also confirms deposit of the penalty. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search in the appellant's premises on 21-10-1985 and seized US dollars 500 in travellers' cheques. Statement of the appellant was recorded on that day in which he stated that he was issued the FTS by the RBI under FTS No. 208 of 1985 dated 25-1-1985 for his visit to Sri Lanka and Singapore, that he went to Singapore and Sri Lanka but he did not spend the FTS allowance as his expenses were met by his friends and relat...

B.R. Maheshwari and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)46ITD20(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1985-86.2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing loss of Rs. 26,500 as a business loss. The assessee is a firm of chartered accountants. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 26,500 in respect of loss incurred by it on account of fraudulent withdrawal of money from its bank account by somebody for which a report was lodged in the police station as, according to the firm, the loss was a business loss. The Income-tax Officer mentioned that, according to the assessee, the cheque was presented in the bank with the forged signature of Shri B.R.Maheshwari, one of the partners, and the payment was made by the bank.He was of the view that the loss claimed was not either business loss or a loss incidental to the profession ca...

Elektrim Polskie Towarzystwg Vs. First Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)42ITD285(Delhi)

Commissioner's order can be challenged if he decided the case on a different ground from the one proposed by him though assessee had not given any other specific reason for challenging the said order.The question of challenge of jurisdiction of Commissioner to decide on a different ground from the one proposed by him could be challenged during the course of arguments, though, no ground has been specifically taken by the assessee. The assessee could raise the point of jurisdiction before the Tribunal, which has not taken up before the lower authorities.1. The assessee, a company incorporated outside India, having certain business connection in India, with Steel Authority of India (SAIL), has filed this appeal. It is primarily aggrieved by the order of the CIT made under Section 263 of the Act, by which he had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer, and withdrew the credit of the tax deducted at source by SAIL.2. The assessee was under contract with SAIL for Supervision, Erection ...

Auto Pins (India) Regd. Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Del)371

ORDERCH. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, PRESIDENT :In this appeal filed against the order of the CIT(A), New Delhi, the justification of the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,23,655 under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, for the asst. yr. 1973-74 was questioned.2. The assessed is a registered firm carrying on the business of manufacture of automobile leaf-springs and supplying them to various State Road Transport Corporations and defense Ministry. The firm was in existence from the asst. yr. 1952-53 till the asst. yr. 1981-82 when it was said the business of the firm was taken over by a company bearing the same name.3. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the IT Department at the business premises of the firm, i.e., factory at Faridabad, Head Office at Kashmere Gate and also at the residences of all the partners (eleven partners) some of the sales representatives, Depot Managers and even some of the employees of the firm at various places of the country on 6th April, 1976. One fact that needs ...