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.
Coca Cola Export Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD498(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14th April, 1988 passed by the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi, for assessment year 1970-71. The assessee submitted long and argumentative grounds along with the appeal and, therefore, they were required to submit precise and brief grounds in conformity with the rule 8 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee accordingly filed revised grounds of appeal along with letter dated 22nd September, 1998. The grounds of appeal submitted alongwith said letter are reproduced hereunder :- "1. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the Income-tax Officer's assessment order dated 8-3-1979 was barred by limitation without dealing with any of these following grounds on which the said contention was based. 2. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the notice under section 148 and initiation of the re-assessment proceedings on the ground of appellants omission and failure to disclose fully and truly...
Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)705; 1999(1)Crimes640; 76(1998)DLT662; 1999(48)DRJ220
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner Company has in this petition instituted on 10.7.1998 sought quashing of FIR No. 285/98 registered on 9.5.1998 at P.S. Rajouri Garden for offences under Sections 420/406/468, I.P.C.2. The complainant Shri Sunil Kumar of M/s. S.K. Automobiles, on whose complaint F.I.R. was registered was not imp leaded as a party. He was permitted to be added as respondent No. 2. A preliminary objection was taken by respondent No. 2 that the persons named in the FIR, namely, the officers of the petitioner Company, had not chosen to approach the Court, instead the petition has been filed by the Company in its own name. To meet with such an objection, the petitioner filed an application (Cr. Misc. No. 5068/98) praying for impleading the officers of the Company named in the F.I.R. as co-petitioners. This application is being opposed by respondent No. 2 in addition to contesting the main petition.3. On 14.4.1998 a complaint in writing was made by respondent No. 2 to the S....
Essex Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ468
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners seek quashing of condition No. 10 contained in the communication of the first respondent Steel Authority of India Limited, dated May 18/25, 1998 (Annexure P-3) inviting offers in respect of tender dated May 6, 1998 for sale of Value Based Advance Licences for duty free import of Non-alloy Steel Melting scrap issued in favor of the former under the Export Import Policy 1992-97, Input Output Norm No. 1282 or as applicable on the date of issue of the licence(s) and Export Import Policy 1997-2002. Input Output norm No. C512, whereby the end use of the material is sought to be restricted for melting alone. The petitioners also seek quashing of the first respondents communication dated June 22, 1998 (Annexure P-4) requiring the tenderers to submit income-tax clearance certificate from the Income-tax Department for the year 1997-98, Sales-Tax registration certificate and Sales-tax assessment order in respect of 1997-98. Facts are...
Subedar Major S.N. Thakur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT695
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioners are Junior Commissioned Officers and are presently posted in Detachment Base Workshop Group EME No. 16 (Inspection) at Delhi Cantt. Their case is that between February, 1998 to October, 1998 there were two inquiries held in the Unit, based on their complaint made against their immediate superior (respondent No. 7). They were called as witnesses and during this period were attached to another Unit within Delhi. On 7.11.1998 some proceedings under Army Rule 22 were initiated against them by respondent No. 6, who framed charge sheet against them under Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Army Act. They were neither supplied with the copy of the charge sheet nor other connected documents. They were made to sign some papers. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 9.11.1998 for purposes of recording summary of evidence under Army Rule 23. Four applications were submitted by the petitioners on 8.11.1998. The petitioners claimed that as the proceedings against the...
Col. A.K. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ209
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as Colonel, was approved for promotion to the rank of Acting Brigadier by the respondents on the 15th of November, 1995. On the 30th of July, 1997, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Director General (TA), Territorial Army Directorate, Army Headquarters, New Delhi in the local rank of Brigadier w.e.f.1.12.1997. On the 1st of December, 1997, the petitioner assumed charge of his promoted rank of Acting Brigadier. On the 3rd of December, 1997, the order promoting the petitioner to the rank of Acting Brigadier was kept in abeyance. On the 22nd of December, 1997, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Northern Command passed a censure order. The same reads as under:-'I have perused the reply of the officer to the show-cause notice bearingN0.22010/C/314/DV-3 dated 16 Oct 97. , I am not satisfied with the Explanationn submitted by IC-23929Y Col A.K.Mehta, ex BRO Jammu presently att with Dte Gen Much Forces, Army HQ. I, thereforee, direct...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Dhani Ram Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ717
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated January 10, 1997. The only point of dispute in the present appeal is as to whether allotment of a flat in the name of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was liable to be cancelled on the ground of delay in submission of the relevant documents along with proof of payment to the appellant-Delhi Development Authority within the prescribed period of ninety days from the date of issue of the letter of allotment. There is no dispute that the petitioner had made full payment for the flat to the appellant. As per the stand of the appellant the respondent was required to submit the documents to it by August 1, 1990 but the same were submitted on November 16, 1990. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in submission of the documents entails cancellation of the allotment of the flat. The same submission was made before the learned Single Judge which was rejected by h...
Coca Cola Export Corpn. Vs. Income Tax Officer Coca Cola Export Corpn. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]70ITD498(Delhi)
ORDERB.M. Kothari, A. M.This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order dated 14-4-1988 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, New Delhi, for assessment year 1970-71. The assessed submitted long and argumentative grounds along with the appeal and, thereforee, they were required to submit precise and brief grounds in conformity with the rule 8 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessed accordingly filed revised grounds of appeal along with letter dated 22-9-1998. The grounds of appeal submitted Along with said letter are reproduced hereunder:-'1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the Income Tax Officer's assessment order dated 8-3-1979 was barred by limitation without dealing with any of these following grounds on which the said contention was based.The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding the notice under section 148 and initiation of the re-assessment proceedings on the ground of' appellants ommission and f...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Florite Engg. Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT610TriDel
1. The Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had filed tine present appeal in which the respondents are M/s. Florite Engg. Corporation, Bombay.2. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR and have gone through the facts on record.3. The issue for our consideration is whether the value of the motors, starters and push buttons was to be included in arriving at the assessable value of power driven pumps when the power driven pumps were supplied with the bought-out starters and push buttons. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of power driven pumps and parts thereof. They purchased electric motors, motor starters and push buttons from outside and on the demand of their customers supplied the same along with power driven pumps. They had included the value of the motor in arriving at the assessable value of the power driven pumps.They had however, ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jhaveribhai Bihari Lal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT189TriDel
1. The above appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, extending the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents herein who are manufacturers of articles of plastics such as cups, and lids out of rigid plain plastic sheets of PVC, etc., falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the cross objections have been filed by the respondents against his findings that they cannot opt to pay duty on finished goods which are fully exempt and are liable to pay duty on the intermediate products viz. plastic sheets as they are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification 217/86 dated 1-3-1986 since their final products were exempted from duty in terms of Notification 53/88 and holding that the respondents were not entitled to Modvat credit on plastic sheets used in the manufacture of the final products.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and Shri Udai Joshi, learned C...
Gujarat Cup Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC436Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Gujarat Cup Company are engaged in the manufacture of paper cups used for packaging/serving ice creams, srikhand, gulab jamuns, tea, coffee, water, etc., falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. Classification of the goods was approved under GET sub-heading 4819.12 but the assessees claim for exemption under Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 was denied on the ground that the unit was a small scale ancillary unit and, therefore, not of the category of SSI unit which alone was covered by the Notification. Vide Order dated 26-6-1992, the lower appellate authority upheld the Assistant Collector's order on classification; however, he extended the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification 175/86, placing reliance on Ministry of Industry's clarification dated 19-3-1979 that a small scale unit includes a small scale ancillary industry having investment in plant and machinery not exceeding the prescribed limit (The assessees had also obtained a permanent registrati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »