Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

United Cores (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, are directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 27th February, 1995 and involve consideration of common points. Hence, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The first ground of assessee's appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30,000 out of the original addition of Rs. 2,30,000 being loan from Mithan Lal made by the AO.2.1 The AO has observed that Mithan Lal gave a loan of Rs. 30,000 to the assessee and it was explained that the said loan was advanced by Mithan Lal out of loan received from one Kanwar Sen. The assessee was required to state the source of Kanwar Sen of Rs. 30,000. It was explained on behalf of the assessee that Kanwar Sen had received this amount from one Hem Raj. The AO required the assessee to produce Hem Raj as well as Kanwar Sen for verification of the said loans but the assessee failed to produce them. The AO, therefore, made an...

Mohal Chand Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]228ITR590(Delhi)

1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petition is directed against the report of the Valuation Officer dated March 18, 1997, made on a reference under section 55A of the Income-tax Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Valuation Officer is binding on the Income-tax Officer and proceedings for valuation being quasi-judicial, a writ of certiorari there against is maintainable. Reliance is placed on Wenger and Co. v. Distt. Valuation Officer : [1978]115ITR648(Delhi) . 3. Senior standing counsel for the respondents has opposed the admission of the petition submitting that alternative efficacious remedy of challenging the valuation report in appeal to be preferred against the order of assessment is available to the petitioner and, thereforee, the petition does not lie. Reliance is placed on CWT v. Dr. H. Rahman : [1991]189ITR307(All) . 4. He also pointed out that during the pendency of this petition, on April 28, 1997, the assessment itsel...

Attar Mian Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT588

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Attar Mian finds himself dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing him under Sections 207 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. (2) It all started on February 5, 1987 when the appellant blew the smoke of charas at Mohd Jhakir. Obviously the act of the appellant did not win the approval of Mohd Jhakir and when he protested the appellant instead of showing any remorse, reacted by giving him a slap. Feeling aggrieved Mohd Jhakir went to his brother Mohd Akhtar (Public Witness 2). Both of them then went to the appellant obviously to lodge their protest. This too was found by the appellant to be not to his liking. He not only abused them but even inflicted knife injury towards the left side of the neck of Mohd Akhtar (Public Witness 2). One Ramesh Kumar (Public Witness 6) was also present there. He tried to intervene but then he too was assaulted and given a knife injury on the left thigh. Both the i...

Phool Mohd. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)644; 68(1997)DLT454; 1997(42)DRJ551; 1997RLR41

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Phool Mohd. stands convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded to him is five years rigorous imprisonment. He feels he has wrongly been convicted and sentenced.(2) The learned counsel for the appellant has urged only two grounds in support of the appeal. His first contention is that Section 307 of the Penal Code is not attracted. The second point relates to the quantum of sentence.(3) That on August 7, 1990 at about 8.45 Am the appellant inflicted a churi blow on the left side of the neck of Mohd. Shafiz stands proved not only from the statement of the victim who has entered into the witness box as PW-7 but also from the evidence of the eye witness namely Abdul Quam (Public Witness -8). It is probably because of this convincing eye witness account that the learned counsel for the appellant did not ask for acquittal.(4) Has the prosecution made out a case under Section 307 of the Penal Code? This then, is the question which needs to be...

Rameshwar Goswami Vs. Kuldeep Kumar Mathur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)305; AIR1998Delhi221; 69(1997)DLT1; 1997(43)DRJ471; 1998RLR135

Usha Mehra, J. (1) PETITIONER/LANDLORD required the ground floor of premises No. F-45, Green Park, New Delhi, for himself and members of his family. The members of his family consisted of himself, his wife, son and daughter. For purpose of residence his brother and his family are occupying first floor of this premises. He, thereforee, filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). He pleaded himself to be the owner/landlord of the premises in question. That the premises was let out for residential purposes on 1st March, 1977. The same was required by him for the residence of his son who is a practicing lawyer at Delhi as well as for the residence of his daughter who wanted to study at Delhi. He being a practicing lawyer often visits Delhi in order to appear in the High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India. His normal visits vary but at least thrice a month he comes and stay at Delhi. That the first floor of the premises is no...

United Cores (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)83

ORDERB. M. Kothari, AMThese cross-appeals, one by the assessed and the other by the Revenue, are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 27-2-1995 and involve consideration of common points. Hence, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The first ground of assessor's appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30,000 out of the original addition of Rs. 2,30,000 being loan from Mithan Lal made by the assessing officer.2.1 The assessing officer has observed that Mithan Lal gave a loan of Rs. 30,000 to the assessed and it was explained that the said loan was advanced by Mithan Lal out of loan received from one Kanwar Sen. The assessed was required to state the source of Kanwar Sen of Rs. 30,000. It was explained on behalf of the assessed that Kanwar Sen had received this amount from one Hem Raj. The assessing officer required the assessed to produce Hem Raj as well as Kanwar Sen for verification ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. B.P. Tiwari

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are that a residential plot No. 123 in Block B/3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi of 70 sq. metres by admeasurement was allotted to the complainant as a result of open auction held on 12.11.1991 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,26,531/ . Admitted case of the parties was that the whole of the consideration had been deposited by the complainant by 9.3.1992. Possession of the plot was not, however, delivered to the complainant despite repeated requests. The complainant, there fore, filed a complaint, which has given rise to this appeal, for delivery of possession and adequate compensation. 2. The plea of D.D.A., opposite party in this case, was that overhead electrical lines which existed on the plot in question had to be shifted by DESU and they failed to do the needful in spite of repeated requests from DDA. On a consideration of the material on record, the District Forum observed that it was the duty of DDA to cle...

Shrinathji Ispat Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insu. Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant is a Public Limited Company having its Factory in Industrial Area, Ghaziabad and is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots and steel casting from iron scrap and sponge iron. The complainant took a fire insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as opposite party No. 1, for Rs. 65.00 lacs for the period 7.4.1995 to 6.4.1996, covering stock of raw material scrap/sponge iron. The policy was extended to cover risk of spontaneous combustion. On 29.8.1995 a serious fire occurred in the stocks of sponge iron. The Insurance Company was informed. They appointed M/s. Laxmi Surveyor and Engineer of Delhi for surveying an assessment of the loss. Subsequently M/s. R.L. Aggarwal and Sons were also appointed as joint Surveyors. The incident was also reported to the police on 30.8.1995. The representative of the Surveyors reached the site on the date of the fire incident when the fire was still on. The nature of spo...

U.P. State Cement Corporation Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT557TriDel

1. Captioned appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad dated 24-5-1995.2. The appellants, M/s. U.P State Cement Corporation Limited are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under T.I.23 of the earstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants have their factories at Churk, Dalla and Chunar. One of the raw materials used in the manufacture of cement is clinker. The appellants' factory at Churk and Dalla manufacture clinker. A major part of the clinker manufactured in the said factories are transferred to the Chunar factory for the manufacture of cement. The Chunar factory does not manufacture clinker but only manufactures cement. The movement of clinker is mostly in the wagons provided by Indian Railways and the wagons provided by the Railways were neither closed wagons nor were they foolproof wagons which made them vulnerable to leakage/pilferage etc.3. The appellants were issued seven show cause notices between 5-4-1984 and 26-4-198...

Lml Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT699TriDel

1. The short point for determination before us in the present appeal is (a) whether Induction Heater was classifiable under Chapter Heading 8448.20 or alternatively 8514.40 as claimed by the Assessees or was classifiable under 8516.29 as held by the Departmental authorities; (b) second issue is whether control panel will be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants imported induction heater and control panel among other things as replacement for Nylon Yarn Manufacturing Plant. The claim that induction heater imported by them was specially designed for use in the Plant and was, therefore, classifiable under Chapter Heading 8448.20. Alternatively, they submitted that in case, item specifically, under the aforesaid heading is not classifiable, then alternative classification of the imported product is 8514.40. About the control panel, the dispute was rate of duty applicable. The importer claims that sinc...