Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Krishna Engg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: [2003]131STC321(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. M/s. Shri Krishna Engineering Co., the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 3304 of 1997 and M/s. Kishan & Company, the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 3859 of 1997 are both registered dealers under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). On July 14, 1997, M/s. Kishan & Company filed an application for issuing statutory forms (form ST-1) for the assessment year 1992-93. By order dated July 17, 1997 (annexure P-4), the application has been rejected on the ground that demands were pending against the petitioner on account of arrears of sales tax payable under the local and the Central Act for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. M/s. Batra Traders, the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 3727 of 1997 is also a dealer registered under the Act. An application for issuance of statutory forms (form ST-1) was made on April 15, 1997. The issuance of forms has been withheld on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter, having failed to clear arrears of tax.3. Both the petitioners...
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Del)110
R.C. Lahoti, J.This common order shall govern the disposal of 73 civil writ petitions, the numbers whereof are referred to in the succeeding paragraph. There are three groups of writ petitions.2. M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. are the petitioners in CWP Nos. 812/98, 813/98, 814/98, 815/98, 1166/98, 2443/97, 2444/97, 2446/97, 2447/97, 2448/97, 2449/97, 2450/97, 2451/97, 2452/97, 2453/97, 2454/97, 2455/97, 2456/97, 2457/97, 2458/97, 2459/97, 2437/97, 2438/97, 3538/97, 3539/97, 3540/97, 3541/97, 3542/97, 3543/97, 3545/97, 3546/97, 3547/97, 3548/97, 3549/97, 3544/97, 2441/97, 2442/97, 2445/97, 1735/97.2.1. M/s DLF Universal Ltd. are the petitioners in CWP Nos. 917/98, 1022/98, 3107/98, 3108/98, 3259/98, 3278/98, 3403/98, 3404/98, 3440/98, 3512/98, 3513/98, 3514/98, 3527/98, 3725/98 3743/98, 3983/98, 4133/98, 4134/98, 4138/98, 4147/98, 4160/98, 4195/98, 4385/98, 4658/98, 4791/98, 4792/98, 991/98, 1776/98, 2190/98, 2191/98, 2192/98, 2436/98, 4611/97, 4612/97.2.2. Rajdhani Estate Pr...
Mrs. Uma Loomba Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN232(Delhi)
Mahajan, J.Mrs. Uma Loomba, the petitioner in CWP 3710 of 1997 is the wife of Dr. K.K. Loomba, the petitioner in CWP 2983/97. These writ petitions have been filed by them seeking quashing of an order under section 124(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by the Commissioner, Delhi-VII and also seeking quashing of the notices under sections 148 of the Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Investigation Circle) 11 (1) New Delhi, for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The relevant facts in both the petitions are common and are briefly stated hereinafter.2. Dr. K.K. Loomba is an individual, a doctor by profession. He was deriving income from Loomba Clinical Laboratories, Amritsar, as a sole proprietor since 1974 and was also a partner in New Bhandari Hospital, Amritsar, up to May, 1984. With effect from May, 1984, he retired from partnership and started his independent practice as Doctor at Amritsar.He claims to have filed returns for the a...
State Bank of India Vs. Prem Sethi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT56
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The plaintiff Bank has filed this suit under Order 34, Rule 4, CPC for recovery of Rs. 5,14,565/- together with interest thereon @ 17% per annum.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff scare is that on 1st December,. 1990, the plaintiff Bank granted to the defendant No. 1 Medium Term Loan of Rs. 1,89,000/- and the Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 1/- lac. The defendant No. 1 agreed to liquidate the loan amount in monthly installments of Rs. 3,938/- together with interest. The first Installment became due on 25th December, 1990. In order to secure payment of the loan, the defendant No. 1 executed a demand promissory note and other documents in favor of the plaintiff Bank. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 guaranteed repayment of the said loan vide agreement dated 28th December, 1990. The defendant No. 3 also created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect to his property bearing plot No. 16, Sanjay Nagar, Part I, Delhi for repayment of the said loan. After availing o...
Joshi Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT855TriDel
1. M/s. Joshi Steel Industries with reference to the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/358/97-B, dated 28-2-1997, in Appeal No. E/1667/87-B1 had filed the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM), in which it had been submitted that the Tribunal had erred in classifying the goods in question as 'flat' instead of 'bar', and that it was an error apparent from the records as well as the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellants. The applicant had prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal *" may be recalled and the mistake apparent from the records may be rectified. They had mentioned that the issue of classification of the product was not taken at the lower level but the same could be raised in appeal before the Tribunal.2. The ROM application was heard on 21-8-1998 when Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant submitted that in the Tribunal's final order, the width of the product had not been taken into account and that the matter had been disposed of on the basis of thickness alone. ...
Amar Dye Chem. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT227TriDel
1. M/s. Amar Dye Chem Ltd. manufactured Dye-Intermediates falling under Chapter 29 and 32 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.They were availing the set-off of duty paid on Naphthalene under Notification No. 201/79. In 1992 they requested the Assistant Collector for the permission to avail the duty credit under Rule 56A(8) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector did not grant them the permission under Adjudication order dated 18-8-1992 holding that Napthalene was not notified under Rule 56A(1). On filing the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order dated 24-12-1992, held that they were eligible for the proforma credit. He, however, directed that for availing the benefit of Notification No. 432/86-C.E., dated 6-10-1986, one-to-one co-relation was necessary, since the set-off was given to the duty paid on that much quantity of napthalene used in the manufacture of final product. Hence this appeal.2. When the matter was called, no one was present...
Diamond Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT68TriDel
1. These are two appeals against common Order-in-Original No. 36/89, dated 5-4-1989 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Aurangabad.2. The appellants M/s. Diamond Rolling Mills manufactured M.S. Round bars which were removed by them availing exemption from whole of duty under Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983. A show cause notice dated 31-8-1988 was issued for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 35,867.45 on M.S. Round bars removed during the year 1987 alleging that the finished goods were manufactured out of ship breaking scrap which was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and consequently the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 was not available to the appellants. The Additional Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant firm and Rs. 5,000/- on Shri Mohan Singh Birdi and Rs. 5,000/-on Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, both partners, holding that the finished goods manufactured from NIL duty paid or n...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ985; 1999(48)DRJ568
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1.This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated 25 May, 1998, whereby Charge under Section 302/460/380/411 read with 34 IPC was framed against the petitioner and the other two coaccused.2. On 26 December, 1997, vide DD No. 13, information about commission of theft of B-69, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was received at Vasant Vihar Police Station. When the police party reached the said premises, dead body of the deceased, Mrs. Sushma Gulati, was found in her bed room on the first floor and the house was found to be ransacked; at the said premises one Ram Kumar, who was working as Manager of the deceased's concern, namely, M/s. Maharaja Exports, was available, who stated that the deceased had left her factory at B-225, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi, t 7.30 PM on 24 D...
Link International Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT852; [1999]239ITR19(Delhi)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. CWP 3853 and 3872/90 are between the same parties and seek reliefs which are more or less identical in nature. By order dated 7.10.1993 both the petitions have been directed to be heard together.2. The relevant facts in brief. The immoveable property No. 701, Sahyog Building, 58, Nehru Place, New Delhi, belongs to M/S Link International, the petitioners. On 30.8.90, the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favor of M/S. Electronic Component Industries Association the respondent No.3 for a consideration of Rs. 14,70,000/- only. Vide clause 12 of the agreement it was expressly agreed upon that the purchaser shall pay the transfer charges. On 8.9.90 the statement of transfer of immoveable property under Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the prescribed proforma 37-I was filed before the appropriate authority duly signed by both the parties to the agreement. On 21.11.90, the appropriate authority passed an order (Annexure P-1) ...
Cit Vs. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT832; [1999]236ITR766(Delhi)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi has referred at the instance of the Revenue the following question of law (relating to the assessment year 1979-80) for the opinion of the High Court:-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the Rule 6AA of the Income-tax Rules made effective w.e.f. 1.8.81 is applicable and weighted deduction u/s 35B of Inspection Fee is admissible to the assessed for the assessment year 1979-802. The assessed is a co-operative society and amongst other activities also exports some agricultural products. Before the Tribunal the controversy centered around the assessor's claim for allowance of weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of inspection fees. The assessed was having arrangement with certain parties who were provisionally qualified for the purpose of inspection of goods meant for export. The submission of the assessed was that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »