Delhi Court May 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.
instrumed (India) International Vs. Income Tax Office
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)191
ORDERB.M. KOTHARI, AM.The first ground relates to confirmation of the disallowance of commission payment of Rs. 1,54,385 made by the assessed to one Ajay Kumar Gupta.1.1. The assessed is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Sameer Kapoor (33 per cent), Sushant Kapoor (33 per cent) and Ajay Saxena (34 per cent). The firm deals in supply of medical/surgical equipments and instruments to medical institutions and hospitals, etc. The assessed filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,27,590 on 31st Aug., 1989. The transitional previous year covered the period of 21 months starting from 1st July, 1987, to 31st March, 1989. The assessed claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 1,54,384 as commission paid to one Ajay Kumar for procuring a contract for supply of surgical goods of Cimmco International (for short 'Cinimco') and also for guaranteeing timely payments from the said customer. The AO disallowed the said commission in view of the elaborate reasons mentioned in the as...
V.i.P. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT476TriDel
1. This is an application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on 13-1-1998 for default in appearance. The applicants submit that the notice of hearing of the appeal was received by their Bombay office and due to some lack of communication between the Head Office and the local Unit of the applicants at Nagpur, the hearing notice had not reached the Nagpur Unit. Since legal matters of the Nagpur unit were being looked after by the Nagpur office, they pray that the non-appearance was due to non-receipt of the notice from the Bombay office and submitted that the appeal may be considered for restoration by setting aside the dismissal order.2. Learned SDR opposes the application stating that once nonce has been served upon the Bombay office, it is sufficient and, therefore, there is no ground for recalling the dismissal order.3. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We note that the applicants have clearly stated that the legal matters of the Nagpur unit were being...
Soyabean and Vanaspati Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT238TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Soyabean & Vanaspati Industries, Halduchaur (Haldwani) Distt. Nainital have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Vegetable product which was a controlled commodity upto 8-1-1986. The price control was withdrawn from 9-1-1986. The appellants filed 2 refund claims for Rs. 32,816.46 and Rs. 1,72,414.83 for the period 12-12-1985 to 22-1-1986 and 27-1-1986 to 31-3-1986 on the ground that even when there was price control upto 8-1-1986 while paying Central Excise Duty at the price fixed under the Essential Commodities Act they had actually sold the vegetable product at lower prices to their customers. For the period subsequent to the withdrawal of the price control also it was their plea that they had paid excise duty at the earlier higher rates but due to market situation could not sell at the same price and the same was actually sold at l...
Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT372TriDel
1. The origin of the dispute is brought out in the show cause notice dated 29-12-1995 as under : "Whereas it appears, that M/s. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory, Bazpur, a manufacturer of V.P. Sugar & Molasses, has wrongly availed Modvat credit under Rule 57A, on the Invoice No. 4, dated 3-4-1995 and 1149, dated 29-3-1995 amounting to Rs. 11388.00 and 11988.00 respectively (Total Rs. 22776.00) on "Sacks & Bangs". Both the invoices have been issued by M/s. Tirupati Jute Industries Pvt. Limited, Howrah in the name of M/s. Howrah Mills Co. Ltd., 493, C.G.T. Road, Howrah (South). Therefore it appears that Modvat credit taken of Nos. 11 & 12, dated 1-6-1995 on these invoices is not admissible to M/s. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Bazpur." 2. The Assistant Collector on the observation that the documents were not in terms of Rule 57G, denied the Modvat and confirmed the demand.The Collector upheld the denial, hence the present appeal.3. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocat...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Camphar Allied Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT366TriDel
1. Revenue has preferred the captioned appeal on the ground that the invoices issued under Rule 52A could not be issued by the marketing division of IOC, that the marketing Division of IOC refinery is not a manufacturer of excisable goods, the invoices in question could not have been issued by them. The finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore misleading, contrary to facts and beyond truth and deserves to be set aside.2. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the Dy.Commissioner in the order in original passed by him observed "as the Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division) Mathura Refinery has not registered themselves as required. M/s. Campher and Allied Products Ltd. procures/ purchases R.F.O. from this unregistered dealer, the marketing division, Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery. As such the goods are not eligible for the benefit of availing the Modvat Credit because the invoices issued by the marketing division, Indian Oil Corpor...
G.B. Photomax (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(78)LC612Tri(Delhi)
1. The demand of duty raised in this case arises on two counts: (1) inclusion of value of items such as selenium plate, toner, ink, etc., in the assessable value of the photocopier machines manufactured and cleared by the appellants, treating them to be parts/consumables and not as accessories; (2) inclusion of loading, unloading handling and forwarding charges in the assessable value of the photocopiers.2. Learned Counsel, Shri Naveen Mullick submits that the nature of the items whose value is sought to be added is accessories and, therefore, the value thereof are not to be included in the assessable value of the appellants' photocopiers. It is his further submission that there is an ex-factory price available for the photocopiers which should have been adopted as assessable value in this case also and the cost of loading, unloading, handling, etc., are to be deducted from the assessable value.3. Learned SDR, Shri Srivastava draws our attention to the show cause notice and the reply ...
Supernal Corpn. (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)68ITD80(Delhi)
(i) After initiation of acquisition proceedings the Competent Authority should pass the order of acquisition, if any, within a reasonable time, in accordance with law and where there is any inordinat delay or excessive deferment of action in exercising powers of passing such order, the same, not being in conformity with cannons of justice, is invalid and liable to be quashed. (ii) A long gap of unreasonable lapse of time makes the acquisition proceedings vexatious and amounts to an abuse of power as well as fraud on power as justice delayed is justice denied.A piece of land owned by the assessee was transferred. Notice of enquiry before initiating acquisition proceedings under section 269C of the Act was issued on 8-9-1986. On the said date reference was made by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The valuation report was forwarded by him on 31-10-1986. The acquisition proceedings were initiated, on 7-11-1986, Deputy Commissioner (Acquisition) issued the notice under section 269D of t...
S. Amarjit Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi33
Usha Mehra, J.1. The question that arises for consideration is; whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will was such as to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the will was validly executed and that the same was genuine.2. In order to answer these question we may have a glance to the relevant facts. Late Shri. Chhattar Singh, father of the propounder and the objector owned a house bearing No. 25/34-35, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. Late Chhattar Singh executed a Will and got it registered with the Sub-Registrar on 5th April, 1978. By the said Will late Chattar Singh bequeathed his property in favor of his eldest son namely Mohinder Singh to the exclusion of his other legal heirs, namely, daughter Tripat Kaur and son Amarjit Singh. In the Will the Testator stated that this house was his self acquired property and being the owner he could bequeath it. He bequeathed the house in favor of his eldest son because that son contributed towards te costs of instal-ments and improvement ...
Laj Khosla Vs. Randhir Khosla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)714; 76(1998)DLT953
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of an office objection by the Registry with regard to Court fee and valuation. Plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction. By order dated 29.3.1995 the suit was directed to be registered subject to objection on Court Fee. The objection being that the value for Court Fee on the relief of declaration ought to be the same as that for pecuniary jurisdiction and Court Fee needs to be paid ad valorem, while the plaintiff had paid fixed court fee.2. The office objection emanates on the ground that the plaintiff had sought a declaration and also an njunction. The suit was, thereforee, one for declaration with consequential relief, falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act on which ad valorem court fee was payable. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act is attracted when the other relief sought, in addition to the relief of declaration, are consequential to the relief of declaration.3. In the instant case...
Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)888; (1999)154CTR(Del)355; 73(1998)DLT823; 1998(46)DRJ201; [1998]234ITR170(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This common order shall govern the disposal of three writ petitions between the same parties and arising out of a common set of facts and events. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of photo sensitive film and is a regular income tax Assesses since long. It commenced several industrial units, one of which is located at an industrially backward area of Bhimtal in Nainital District of the State of U.P. The unit was engaged in manufacturing of colour roll films. 2.1 Prior to the assessment year 1991-92 the asessee had claimed invest-ment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the machines installed for production of colour film rolls for the period relevant to the assessment year 1990-91. This claim of the petitioner was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that manufacture of colour film rolls was not entitled to investment allowance because such an article was included in the prohibited...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »