Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 12 of about 169 results (0.021 seconds)Rupayan Associates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53ITD268(Delhi)
1. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated 25-8-1993 erred in upholding the taxation of Rs. 15,78,434 as income of the impugned assessment year instead of treating it as income of the assessment year 1992-93, as declared.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of renovation, interior decoration and allied job works. In early 1987 it was allotted a contract by the Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank for short) as a part of its Renovation project of its New Delhi Building, for which the Bank also appointed Architects, i.e. M/s Jasbir Sahni & Associates (M/s JSA for short) ; Consultants, Namely, M/s Spectral Services Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and different contractors for different jobs, i.e., electrical works (M/s National Electricals) Air-conditioning works (M/s Blue Star Ltd.) and civil works and interiors (M/s Rupayan Associates Pvt. Ltd.) that is the as...
Tag this Judgment!Swaraj Majda Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)300; 1995(33)DRJ438; 1995(80)ELT242(Del); ILR1995Delhi567
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The petitioner, a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (SICA) filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated March 17, 1994 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (CEGAT) passed under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (for short 'the Act') whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit duty amount of Rs. 1.40 crores as a pre-deposit for the appeal to be heard. Rest of the demand was, however, stayed. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of chassis for motor vehicles. It says when the chassis are cleared from its factory premises it pays duty under Heading 87.06 of the Central Excise Tariff whether the chassis sold to individual buyers or given to an independent body builder. In the present case, the body builder is Sutlej Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that M/s. Sutlej Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. fabric...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpavriksha Engineers Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1398; 1995(1)ARBLR515(Delhi); 58(1995)DLT261; 1995(33)DRJ314
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) A contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent after the petitioner had been award the work of 'providing project management consultancy services for Lower Periyar Hydro-electric Project in Kerala'. The work was allotted through letter dated 23.5.1989. One of the terms of the agreement required the respondent to pay to the petitioner 10% of the total fee amounting to Rs.2.25 lakhs as initial amount against the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee. The initial payment was to be adjusted from out of the running payments of the work on pro rata basis. The bank guarantee was furnished which was issued on 23.5.1989 by New Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank') for a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs in favor of the respondent. The respondent invoked the bank guarantee for the balance amount of Rs.2,13,130.27, which remained due and unadjusted from the running account bills of the petitioner. A dispute at that s...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi Vs. Goyal Charitable Tru ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Del)426; 58(1995)DLT757; 1995(34)DRJ254
M.K. Sharma,J. (1) This reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the Revenue praying for a direction requiring the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question said to be a question of law arising out of the combined order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1874 and 2898/1987 relevant to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85:- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble It at was 'justified in dismissing the departmental appeal and holding that the interest accrued on compensation could be assessable only after-the enhanced compensation had been finally determined with the interest earned by the assessed during the year under consideration had nothing to do with the compensation/ enhanced compensation?'(2) Briefly staled, the facts of the case are that the assessed is a Trust which came into existence under a Deed of Trust dated 1.9.1973. Shri Om Prakash Goel and Shri Hari Shankar Goel w...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Kapoor Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT390
Mr. Vijender Jain, J.1. This is a Revision Petition the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 17.1.1984.2. Briefly sating the facts of this case are that the present petitioner was a member of the Governing Body of Shri Guru Teg Bahadur 'Khasla College Delhi. The said College, on account of the option sought by the University of Delhi, wanted to shift its building from Dev Nagar, where it was located, to the University Campus. According to the petitioner, after obtaining grant from the University Grants Commission for the construction of new building inside the University Campus, the Governing Body of the said College constituted a Committee of four persons i.e., Shri G.S. Randhawa, the then Principal of the College, Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Honorary Treasurer of the College, Shri Daljit Singh, In-charge Building affairs and Shri Jaswant Singh, Engineer. Shri Daljit Singh and Shri Jaswant Singh are since dead. The petitioner filed a complaint against the said four perso...
Tag this Judgment!Rupayan Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)678
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A. M. :The only grievance of the assessed in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) in his order dt. 25th Aug., 1993 erred in upholding the taxation of Rs. 15,78,434 as income of the impugned assessment year instead of treating it as income of the asst. yr. 1992-93, as declared.2. The relevant facts are that the assessed is a company. It is engaged in the business of renovation, interior decoration and allied job works. In early 1987 it was allotted a contract by the Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank for short) as a part of its renovation project of its New Delhi building, for which the bank also appointed architects, i.e., M/s. Jasbir Sahni & Associates (M/s. JSA for short); consultants, namely, M/s. Spectral Services Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and different contractors for different jobs, i.e., electrical works (M/s. National Electricals); air-conditioning works (M/s. Blue Star Ltd.) and civil works and interiors (M/s. Rupayan Associates Pvt. Ltd.), that is, the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Gandharv Trading and Investment Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT276TriDel
1. All these appeals involve common issues and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants in all these cases submitted that main issue to be considered in these cases is whether Acrylic waste/Synthetic waste is classifiable under Tariff Item 1S-IV as held by the Department or under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act med by the party for the purpose of countervailing duty, in addition to the issue whether Department was justified in discarding the invoice value and ordering for confiscation of the goods as well as imposing penalty in all these cases. He said that appellants have placed order for supply of wool waste, but by mistake the supplier has sent Synthetic waste. Department was wrong in classifying the item as Acrylic Fibre instead of Acrylic waste or synthetic waste He said that item was tested and retested and referring to the test reports, he said th...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Lakshmi Laminated Safety Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC75Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Chandra Lakshmi Laminated Safety Glass Limited have filed the present appeal, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No.326/CE/DLH/93, dated 27-9-1993, passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The point for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the product laminated safety wind shield glass, whether under sub-heading No. 7004.20, or sub-heading No. 8708.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'). The appellants have sought classification of the product manufactured by them under sub-heading No. 7004.20, of the Tariff as Laminated Safety Glass, while the Revenue had classified the goods as parts and accessories of the motor vehicles under sub-heading No.8708.00 of the Tariff.3. The matter was posted for hearing on 24-11-1994, when Shri V.Srid-haran, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Shri K.K. Jha, S.D.R.represented the respondent.4. Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Aarti Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT505TriDel
1. The stay application is for waiver of the demand of duty on CTD bars on the ground that the goods are ineligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 202/88.2. We have heard both the parties. We find that there have been several other similar stay applications in which the Tribunal has taken a view that on a verification of the Modvat eligibility of the parties for the inputs used in the manufacture of the goods, stay could be granted.This approach in granting stay in these matters has been also set out in the latest order of the Tribunal Misc. Order No. E-346/94-B1, dated 14-12-1994. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in all these cases is to grant waiver of duty where verification report covers full amount of duty demanded. In the cases, now taken up, it has been reported that verification has been done by the Departmental Authorities and the amount covers the duty demanded. Therefore, following the previous orders on the identical stay applications, we grant stay in...
Tag this Judgment!National Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT650TriDel
1. M/s. National Electronics have filed these appeals being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held :- "I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellants, both written and oral, as well as the record of the case. The appellant's claim for allowing assessment under Heading 84.66 considering the goods imported as Project Import, was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the machines imported did not constitute an industrial plant or project and that they cannot be said to be meant for substantial expansion of existing project. The appellants, however, have pleaded that theirs being a manufacturing company having approved manufacturing programme from appropriate authority, the goods imported by them should enjoy the benefit of Project Import. In support of their contention the appellants have also referred to an importation by M/s. Gramophone Company of India where similar goods were allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!