Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1999)63TTJ(Del)532
ORDERJ.P. BENGRA, J.M.:This is an appeal by the assessed against the block assessment made under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961 determining undisclosed income of the assessed at Rs. 5,62,13,938. The search and seizure operation was conducted against the assessed on 17th Nov., 1995, along with other Aerens group of cases. Notice under s. 158BC dt. 20th May, 1996, was served on the assessee. In compliance of the notice the assessed filed his return for the block period on 14th Aug., 1996, declaring nil income. However, the AO after scrutinising the seized material, at the inquiry stage of the assessment and after making inquiries, sustained three major additions given as under :Rs. (a)3.80 croreson the basis of loose sheet which was listed at p. 13 of the Annexure A-1.(b)1,71,53,938on the basis of torn papers seized by the raiding party from toilet and sewerage line.(c)10,60,000on account of gifts received from NRI staying outside India.Unaccounted receipt receivable money to the tune o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the block assessment made under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961 determining undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 5,62,13,938. The search and seizure operation was conducted against the assessee on 17th November, 1995, along with other Aerens group of cases. Notice under s. 158BC dt. 20th May, 1996, was served on the assessee. In compliance of the notice the assessee filed his return for the block period on 14th August, 1996, declaring nil income. However, the AO after scrutinising the seized material, at the inquiry stage of the assessment and after making inquiries, sustained three major additions given as under :(a) 3.80 crores on the basis of loose sheet which was listed at p. 13 of the Annexure A-1.(b) 1,71,53,938 on the basis of torn papers seized by the raiding party from toilet and sewerage line.(c) 10,60,000 on account of gifts received from NRI staying outside India. Unaccounted receipt/receivable money to the tune of Rs. 9,50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 74(1998)DLT247; 1998RLR219
N.G. Nandi, J. 1. The order dated 16.9.1997, dismissing CR 753/97 under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was directed against the order refusing leave to contest under Section 25-B(4) and (5) of the Act in the proceedings under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act, is sought to be reviewed under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC by the applicant tenant.2. The main plank of the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant/tenant seeking review of order dated 16.9.1997 is that the dismissal of revision application under Section 25-B(8) of the Act vide order dated 16.9.1997 is by following the minority view in the case of Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. v. Premdeva Niranjandeva Tayal 1982(3) SCR 270 that as per the majority view in the aforesaid decision for the purpose of deciding leave to contest application under Section 25-B(4) & (5) of the Act it would be the affidavit filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)836; AIR1998Delhi206; 1998(45)DRJ38
ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that it is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and is carrying on business of banking including at Model Town, New Delhi. S.K. Basu has been authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership concern of which defendants 2 to 5 are the partners. Defendant No. 1 had a current account No. 30201 since the year 1974 in the Model Town Branch of the plaintiff Bank. It is alleged that the plaintiff purchased two cheques from defendant No. 1. Cheque bearing No. 690627 for Rs. 23,995/- purchased on May 20, 1981 was issued by M/s. Aggarwal Industries, Amritsar defendant No. 7 in favor of defendant No.1. Cheque purchased on June 7, 1981 bearing No. 609405 for Rs. 27,420/- was issued by M/s. Jalan Sales Corporation, Rajpura defendant No. 6 favouring defendant No. 1. After the purchase of both the said cheques the amount equal to the value thereof was credited in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(76)LC453Tri(Delhi)
1. Respondent's claim for deduction of cash discount declared in the price list was rejected by the Assistant Collector but was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). Collector of Central Excise being aggrieved has filed this appeal.2. There is no dispute that the cash discount as declared was allowed to buyers who made payment of the price within two working days of the receipt of the proof of despatch. The objection taken by the department is being based on the ground that cash discount was not being passed on to all buyers. It was passed on to all buyers who satisfied the condition imposed for the cash discount. In the circumstances, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in allowing deduction. We also notice that though five appeals were required to be filed and the Collector has filed only one appeal.3. The appeal is dismissed. Cross objection being merely supportive is also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT197TriDel
1. The dispute in the appeal related to assessable value of valves manufactured and cleared by the respondent with bought out items such as dust caps, hex nuts and ring washers. The Assistant Collector held that Valves were sold after fitting the bought-out items and the value of the bought-out items was to be included in the value of the Valves.The Collector (Appeals) held that these items are not component parts of Valves since over 90% of the finished products were cleared without the bought-out items fitted on them. Department challenged this order before the Tribunal. We held that these bought-out items are really component parts of Valves and that being so, whether they were fitted or not, would not make any difference. Inevitably, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was to be set aside and the appeal allowed.Instead, we stated in Paragraph 5 that we found no ground to interfere and accordingly dismissed the appeal. This, it is said, is an error on the face of the record...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)666; 73(1998)DLT293
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the direction of the Rent Control Tribunal for personal presence of the petitioner's Managing Director, before taking up the appeal for admission.2. Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of eviction, passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The memorandum of appeal and the application for stay was signed by Mr. Govind Deora, Company Secretary, who is also the Principal Officer and holds the Power of Attorney from the Company.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal came up for admission before the Rent Control Tribunal on 13.11.1997. The learned Tribunal declined to hear the appeal and directed the Managing Director to be present in person on 18.11.1997. On 18.11.1997 when the Counsel for the petitioner, Along with Mr. Govind Deora, Company Secretary, was present and the Counsel requested for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT162TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 5-6-1991.2. Ld. Counsel drew attention towards the memo of appeal and the facts of the case as narrated therein and briefly recapitulated them as follows : 3. That the appellants in their only registered small scale Industrial unit and availing benefits under exemption Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended, are engaged in the manufacture of furniture and parts thereof wooden as well as those made from polyurethane foam (rigid) falling under sub-heading 9403.00.4. On 17-10-1988 officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise, MOD-I, New Delhi, visited the factory premises of the appellants seized 1,017 pieces of furniture parts, describing the same as 'Articles of Rigid Polyurethane Foam' valued at Rs. 1,45,440.00 and resumed their entire accounts statedly for reason that the said articles of P.U. Foam were being manufactured without obtaining a Central Excise Licence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Del)423
ORDERB. M. Kothari, A. M.The revenue has raised the following ground in this appeal :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the status of a firm where certified copy of partnership deed as required under the provision of section 184(2) of the Income Tax Act has not been filed.'2. The assessed furnished a return of income declaring loss of Rs. 12,930. The assessing officer processed the said return under section 143(1)(a) on 18-2-1995, in which he determined the status of the firm as an (Association of person). He also disallowed the salary paid to partner amounting to Rs. 18,000 and thereby determined the assessor's income at Rs. 5,070. He levied tax at maximum marginal rates @ 40 per cent under section 167B(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and further levied additional tax. The assessing officer had also simultaneously passed an order under section 185 on 28-2-1995 in wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT430TriDel
1. In the reference application, revenue has contested that the following points of law arise out of Tribunal's Final Order No.910/97-NB, dated 26-8-97 -1997 (96) E.L.T. 360 (T). (i) Whether the credit taken on scrap used in manufacture of steel billets/ingots which were used captively, without payment of duty, in the manufacture of CTD bars, flats, rounds and channels, would be admissible for discharging duty on CTD bars, flats, rounds and channels despite the fact firstly, that scrap was not an input for the final products and secondly, the scrap was not declared as an input for steel ingots/billets in declaration filed under Rule 57G. (ii) Whether embargo laid down by Rule 57C is absolute and categorical.2. Arguing the reference application Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR submits that the respondent had not declared scrap as an input for steel ingots and billets and that scrap was not an input for the final product. He submits that the Modvat scheme envisages that the applicant shall not on...
Tag this Judgment!