Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)405; 3(1997)CLT425; 68(1997)DLT650; 1997RLR585
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) From January 1993 till 1996. 179 retail outlets (Petrol Pumps), 155 Lpg distributorships and 45 SKO/ Ldo dealerships under discretionary quota were allotted by the Minister. In Delhi Petrol Pumps allotted by Oil Selection Board during this period were 64 in number and the Petrol Pumps allottee under discretionary quota were 65 in number. In Bombay. 4 Petrol Pumps were allotted by Board and 3 under discretionary quota by the Minister. 05HCD/97-2 (2) The examination of files clearly shows that these are not cases of aberrations here or aberration there but are cases which show pattern of favouritism.(3) In these cases where the allotments of petrol pumps etc. made by the Minister under his discretionary quota have been called in question, it is necessary to lay down as to what is the concept of 'discietion,'. '.Discretion' implies good faith in discharging public duties. The exercise of 'discretion' has to be based on relevant consideraions. When it is exercised by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)65ITD313(Delhi)
1. These two appeals by the assessee and one cross appeal by the revenue are directed against the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) on 5-11-1996 for Assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. The assessee is a share broker and derives income from dealings in shares as well as income from brokerage. Shri M. D. Khandelwal, a member of Delhi Stock Exchange (DSE) had floated a sole proprietary concern M/s. Khandelwal Associates and carried on business operations of trading of shares for himself and for his clients. The assessee had done huge transactions with parties involved in share scam such as M/s.Harshad Mehta, M/s. Ashwin Mehta, Jyoti H. Mehta and M/s. Virender Saigal & Co. and M/s. R. P. Arvind & Co. The assessee was also holding power of attorney of M/s. Harshad Mehta, M/s. Ashwin Mehta, M/s. Jyoti H. Mehta for operating their bank account in Delhi. The assessee had shown a lump sum brokerage of Rs. 1.50 lakh each from Shri Harshad Mehta, Shri Ashwin Mehta and Smt. Jy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)91; 68(1997)DLT701; 1997(43)DRJ26
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Orders (annexure-A and C) passed respectively by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration and the Financial Commissioner, Delhi are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) Respondent No.4 made a complaint and thereby raised a dispute as regards the membership of the petitioner in the Wazirabad Multipurpose Co- operative Society Limited alleging that the petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms of Rule 25(1)(c) of the Delhi Co-operative societies Rules, as such, his name was liable to be struck off as a member of the society in question. It was alleged that the petitioner owns plot No.9, Block 14, in Indira Vikas Colony and had also been allotted plot No.B-102 in the society, which was contrary to the Rules. was alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was allotted plot No.9 in block No.14, Indra Vikas Colony and because of this he had incurred di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT717TriDel
1. Both these appeals involve common question of law, hence are being taken up together for final disposal. The appellants made import of Automatic Gear Tooth Rounding and Deburring machine and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 154/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 under the entry at Serial No. (i) 36 and 37. Vide the impugned order, the adjudicating authority held that since the imported machine is neither only a tooth chamfering machine nor it is only an automatic gear deburring and tooth rounding machine, but is capable of performing all the three functions, therefore it will not be covered by either of the entries at Serial No.36 and 37 of sub-serial No. (1) of the table appended to Notification No. 154/86.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Notification No. 154/86-Cus. covers at Serial No. 36 Gear Tooth Chamfering Machine and at Serial No. 37 Automatic Gear Deburring and Tooth Rounding Machine. She submits that the machine imported by the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1997)59TTJ(Del)723
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, on 5th March, 1991 for asst. yr. 1986-87.2. The appellant firm is carrying on business of civil contractors. The firm filed its return of income on 25th September, 1986, declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,10,000. The copies of final accounts such as P&L; a/c and balance sheet were not enclosed with the said return. The AO, thereforee, issued a notice on 8th December, 1986 calling upon the assessed to remove the defects pointed out in the said notice and to furnish copies of final accounts. The assessed furnished the second return on 1st January, 1987, showing taxable income at Rs. 1,12,320. The assessed also filed copy of balance sheet and P&L; a/c along with the said return. The assessed filed the third return on 2nd December, 1987, declaring taxable income at Rs. 1,80,230.The appellant-firm did not maintain regular books of accounts. The final accounts were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)430; 1998(3)Crimes83; 72(1996)DLT55; 1998(44)DRJ38
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of detention dated November 4,1996 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). (2) Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a representation of the petitioner dated December 2,1996 was handed over to the Jail Authorities for being transmitted to the detaining authority. On December 3,1996 the representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Detaining Authority under dispatch Number5946 and the petitioner was informed about the same. On December 6, 1996 the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board when a fresh representation was filed in which the factum of dispatch of the representation dated December 3, 1996 to the Detaining Authority was mentioned. The grievance of the petitioner is that till today the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, on 5th March, 1991 for asst. yr.1986-87.2. The appellant firm is carrying on business of civil contractors. The firm filed its return of income on 25th September, 1986, declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,10,000. The copies of final accounts such as P&L a/c and balance sheet were not enclosed with the said return. The AO, therefore, issued a notice on 8th December, 1986 calling upon the assessee to remove the defects pointed out in the said notice and to furnish copies of final accounts. The assessee furnished the second return on 1st January, 1987, showing taxable income at Rs. 1,12,320.The assessee also filed copy of balance sheet and P&L a/c along with the said return. The assessee filed the third return on 2nd December, 1987, declaring taxable income at Rs. 1,80,230.The appellant-firm did not maintain regular books of accounts. The final accounts were claimed to have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997(43)DRJ279
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) These two appeals arise out of same order passed on 18.1.1996 in is 14791/91 in Suit No.3877/91 by the learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowing the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale or dealing with and selling their product under the trade mark 'CLEANZO' or any other mark or marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark Cleanzo bearing No.335807 and also from using label similar to that of the plaintiff's label on the cartons of the products. (2) FAO(OS) 48/96 is by the plaintiff M/s Metropol India (P) Ltd. and FAO(OS) 98/96 is by the defendant Praveen Kumar Sabharwal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Praveen Industries India . Plaintiff is aggrieved by the last part of the impugned order, which has permitted the defendant to manufacture and sell its product under the name, style and trade mark Praveen Cleanzo with the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)LC555Tri(Delhi)
1. Respondent is a manufacturer of Patent or Proprietary medicines which, at the material time, fell under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14E.Price Lists in Part I was filed by respondent wherein deduction on account of trade discount was claimed. The Assistant Collector disallowed the claim holding that Price List should have been filed in Part III and in accordance with proviso (ii) to Section 4(1)(a) as the subject medicines were covered by Drug (Price Control) Order, 1979. For such goods, in terms of Notification 245/83, duty was to be charged on the retail price specified in the price list issued under the aforesaid order allowing a discount of 15% thereon. The Assistant Collector confirmed duty demand of Rs. 7,03,133.69 vide his Order-in-Original dated 7-4-1987. This was challenged by the respondent successfully before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who, vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 8-6-1988, set it aside. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. K. Sampath filed an application seeking to permit withdrawal of the appeal now pending before this Special Bench and he prayed for the necessary permission to withdraw. The learned Departmental Representative hotly contested and argued that the assessee had no power to withdraw the appeal when once he has filed it and the same is pending before the Tribunal. He had cited the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bhartia Steel & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors.(1974) 97 ITR 154 (Cal), and canvassed for the proposition that the Tribunal had to dispose of the appeal on merits and that it had no power to allow the withdrawal of the appeal. K. Sampath disputed the proposition put forward by the learned Departmental Representative and brought to our notice the wording of s. 254(1), which is as follows : "The Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit." The phrase "pass such orders ther...
Tag this Judgment!