Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 10 of about 234 results (0.033 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kabirdas Investment Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]249ITR776(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN209(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following three questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'1. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest paid on loans borrowed by the assessed is not to be apportioned between the income from the business and income from dividends and that this is fully adjustable against business income only ? 2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of deduction under Section 80M, it was the gross dividend income that should be considered, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]155ITR120(SC) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law an...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT408TriDel
'I have given a careful consideration to the facts submitted in the appeal including those argued in written brief submitted at the time of personal hearing. In this case, the point of dispute is about the removal, disposal of the ripped tobacco obtained by ripping of the defective cigarettes. The Appellants were initially removing the tobacco in question under Rule 196BB of the Central Excise Rules which regulates the removal of excisable goods obtained under Rule 192 under Chapter X procedure either as such or after being partially processed for purposes of test, refining, repair, reconditioning or carrying out any other operation necessary for completion of industrial process. It was, however, made clear that the subject goods should be returned to appellants premises, this was if any for further in the industrial process. Admittedly, in this case, this essential condition was not complied with and as such the action initiated in stopping the clearances under Rule 196 BB was perfec...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Overseas Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT304TriDel
1. Learned Counsel, Shri J.S. Agarwal seeks early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the imported goods viz. pistons with rings are lying uncleared, due to very high redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority. He submits that the applicants are unable to pay the fine and clear the goods, which are likely to deteriorate, unless the appeal is disposed of at an early date.2. Learned DR, Shri Srivastava fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench.3. Having regard to the nature of the goods and the amount of RF and the applicant' inability to pay the high quantum of fine, we accede to the prayer for early hearing of the appeal and fix the appeal for hearing on 25-11-1998....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sree Rama Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT238TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against impugned order dated 27-3-1991, passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.2. The respondents M/s. Sree Ram Rolling Mills remained absent in spite of notice. We proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri Nunthuk, learned JDR.3. The respondent M/s. Sree Rama Rolling Mills filed classification list for copper plates falling under Heading No. 7409.00 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 61/83, dated 1-3-1983. The classification list also showed waste and scraps of copper falling under 7404.00 and benefit of Notification No. 177/88, dated 13-3-1988 was claimed. They had declared that strips manufactured out of old copper purchased from old market, the Assistant Collector has approved the classification list. Accordingly, the department has filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the department, hence this appeal.4. According to the department th...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Rana and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)139; II(1998)DMC556; 1999(48)DRJ49
ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1. Petitioners Ranjit Singh Rana, Paramjit Singh Rana, Smt. Kuljit Kaur, Amarpal Singh Rana and Smt. Renu Rana, father-in-law, husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and latter's wife respectively, of the deceased Arvin Rana ( for short 'Arvin') have been charged for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Ranjit Singh Rana has also been separately charged under Section 302 IPC.2. The petitioners challenge the legality, propriety and validity of the order framing charges against them.3. Briefly the facts are that the deceased Arvin was married to accused Paramjit Singh on 21.4.1984. Her parents are living at Bombay whereas her in-laws are living at Delhi. A male child was born to her on 26.8.1987. She died on 23.11.1988 at her matrimonial house at A-102, New Friends Colony, New Delhi an unnatural death. It has been alleged that she was being harassed by her in laws on account of inadequate dowry and in connection with the demand of dowry and she died a homicidal dea...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Goel Vs. Sardari Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)325; 75(1998)DLT641
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and injunction. The declaration sought by the plaintiff was that by virtue of an agreement dated 30th March, 1987 no right in favor of defendant No. 1 has been created in plot No. B-30, Ram Prashtha Colony, Maharajpur, Uttar Pradesh, measuring 555.50 sq. yds. Injunction was also claimed in respect of the same plot of land in District Ghaziabad. By judgment dated 3rd May, 1995 this Court held that as the property in suit for which the declaration was claimed was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter and the plaint was, accordingly, returned for presentation in proper Court. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Division Bench and on 26th May, 1995 the plaintiff after some arguments made a statement before the Court that he would delete the relief sought for in respect of the property in Ghaziab...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Leelawati Singh and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 4(1998)CLT165; 75(1998)DLT694
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. Shri Harikishan Singh, who had left behind substantial items of money and an immovable property, had left behind his widow, Mrs. Leelawati Singh, and three sons, namely, Shri Ashok Singh, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh. He died on the 25th of January, 1996. His widow, Mrs. Leelawati Singh is the first petitioner. Shri Ashok Singh, the eldest son is the second petitioner. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh the second son is the second respondent. Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, the third son is the third respondent.2. The petitioner had prayed for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Shri Harikishan Singh. The second petitioner supports the petition. The third petitioner; Vijay Kumar Singh, opposes the application for grant of Letters of Administration.3. In Annexure 'B' to the petition the details about the immovable and movable assets left behind by the deceased Harikishan Singh, which are given as under :INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE O...
Tag this Judgment!Aroon K. Basak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1999]236ITR931(Delhi)
1. Heard finally.2. Rule D. B.3. The petitioner, a chartered accountant by profession, was appointed Director-General of Assocham, New Delhi--respondent No. 4, for a term of five years. The petitioner left the service with effect from November 30, 1988. The petitioner was paid an ex gratia amount of Rs. 5,50,000 by his employer. On this amount as also on a few other payments made to the petitioner the employer had deducted an amount of Rs. 3,04,953 and a further amount of Rs. 24,548 on account of income-tax by way of TDS and deposited the same with the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, vide income-tax deduction certificate (annexure-A). There is some controversy whether a return of income-tax is filed or not before the appropriate Assessing Officer. The fact remains that the assessment has gone barred by time on March 31, 1994, by reference to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. Inasmuch as no demand on account of income-tax has been created against the petitioner, the amount of TDS is ...
Tag this Judgment!Lallco (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT544TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Lallco'(India). Pvt. Ltd., the only issue for our consideration is whether the imposition of penalty of Rs. 500/- was justified.3. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR, and have gone through the facts on record.4. We find that the appellants were availing small scale exemption and were also availing of the benefit of Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. They were exempted from obtaining central excise licence till their value of clearances exceeded 80% of the value of clearances eligible for full exemption. It is seen that they exceeded the said 80% limit but did not apply for central excise licence. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that it was an admitted position that for the year 1984-85 the value of clearances of the appellants was Rs. 24,15,448.34 which was more than 80% of the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakh.5. As the appellants had admitted that their value of clearances had crossed the limit beyond which they were requ...
Tag this Judgment!Crescent Computers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC534
1. For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves.2. In these cases which arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Delhi, a duty demand of Rs. 47,84,216/- has been confirmed on the first applicant company viz M/s. Crescent Computers and an equivalant amount of penalty has been imposed under Section 11AC of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the second applicant viz. Shri Rajiv Aggrawal who is the Director of the first appellant company. The duty has been demanded inter alia for the reasons that: (a) the applicant company had undervalued the computers by clearing them on payment of duty on a lower value for self to office and thereafter, sold them from the office to the customers at much higher prices. The demand under this heading is Rs. 9,48,23...
Tag this Judgment!