Delhi Court February 1999 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.
Punjab Fibres Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)72ITD68(Delhi)
"(1) The CIT(A), Chandigarh, has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,05,038 on plant and machinery to the extent of subsidy of Rs. 15,00,000. (2) As such subsidy does not reduce the cost of the assets and the claim of depreciation is liable to be fully allowed. (3) The CIT(A), Chandigarh, has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 72,94,362 on enhanced value of assets due to revaluation, provided in P&L a/c for determining the book profit under s. 115J of IT Act, 1961. Reserve created on revaluation of fixed assets is not the dividend. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with regard to the disclosure in the accounts. The P&L a/c for the year was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956, and depreciation is liable to be allowed in full. (4) Claim of depreciation on revalued assets is liable to be allowed in full while ...
Mohd. Zareeq Khan and Others Vs. Jamia Millia Isalamia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT676
ORDERDevinder Gupta, ACJ.1. Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.12.1998 dismissing appellant writ petition is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Pursuant to the disciplinary action taken against the appellants and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, ViceChancellor of the respondent University expelled the appellants from University for one academic year. Simultaneously ban was imposed on them not to enter University Campus for the same duration. After expiry of the period the petitioners were expelled from University. The appellants sought readmission in Academic Session 199899 for the courses, which they had been undergoing, prior to the order of expulsion. They were denied readmission. This order of ViceChancellor was challenged in writ petition. The learned Single Judge relying upon the affidavit of the ViceChancellor and the powers conferred on the ViceChancellor in clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the University dismissed the writ petition.3. Having...
Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)8; 78(1999)DLT356
ORDERDevinder Gupta, A.C.J. 1. Order (annexureP.2) dated 7.1.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi disposing of miscellaneous application No.2726/98 in O.A.2560/98 filed by respondents 2 to 5 is under challenge by the petitioners. 2. The respondents working as scientists in different institutions under Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short 'I.C.A.R.'), approached the Tribunal on 28.12.1998 against the proposed action to retire them on attaining the age of 60 years. On 29.12.1998, while issuing notice in the main petition, by way of interim measure, the petitioners were restrained from retiring the respondents on 31.12.1998. After hearing the miscellaneous application impugned order was passed holding that it was a fit case where interim order deserves to be extended till final disposal of the petition on the condition that the respondents shall give an undertaking before their respective Institutions/ Directorates that in case they ...
Satellite Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)850; 77(1999)DLT735
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner/claimant under Sections 30, 33 of the Arbitration Act. 2. A few facts leading to the controversy in question may be stated at the outset. On 1961990, an agreement was entered into between the respondent Union of India and the petitioner/claimant for supply of PVC(AL) cables 16 sq.mm. to 120 mm by the petitioner to the respondent. Consequent upon certain disputes having arisen in between the parties, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator rendered his award on 29121995. The petitioner/claimant has filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to the award being made a rule of the Court. Petitioner's main grievance is that the Arbitrator has committed a patent error in allowing the counter claim of the respondent. On the contrary, it is contended by the respondent that the respondent suffered a loss of Rs. 3,33,560.13 on account of nonexecutio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aristocraft International (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT656; [1999]238ITR83(Delhi)
ORDERS--Weighted deduction under section 35(1)(b)Ratio:Expenditure in relation to payment of commission to an Indian agent for arranging export order from foreign customers was not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(1)(b)Held:Payment of commission was paid to Indian agent in India for the services, which fall in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. Such deduction is not allowable the ratio of the decision in CIT v. Stepwell Industries' (1997) 228 ITR 171 (SC), the question has to be answered in the negative, namely, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.Case Law Analysis:CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 171 (SC) followed.Application:Not to current assessment yearDt. Judg. 5-2-1997 Decision:In favor of revenueIncome Tax Act 1961 s.35(1)(b)Income Tax Act 1961 s.256(1)Export market development allowance--ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES IN INDIA--Weighted deductionRatio & Held:Since expenditure on entertaining foreign customers was incurre...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Industrial Cables (i) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT513TriDel
1. The issue involved in this case is the eligibility for Modvat credit on exempted goods which have suffered duty.2. Learned Departmental Representative, Shri D.K. Nayyar admits that even though the goods had been exempted, duty had been paid on them.3. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that duty paid on exempted goods can be claimed as Modvat credit. He refers to the decision of the Tribunal in Eveready Industries (India) Limited v. C.C.E., Allahabad reported in 1998 (28) RLT 659 (CEGAT) 'in support of his submission.4. I have perused the records of the case and considered the submissions made. I find that the Tribunal has held in the case of Eveready Industries (India) Limited that Rule 57A envisages giving of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs received and that Central Excise Authorities cannot disallow duty paid on inputs as Modvat credit on the ground that such duty was not payable. Thus, the issue involved in the present appeal remains covered aga...
Venus Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT63TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals'), Ghaziabad.2. The brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the Modvat credit on the ground that the goods, in question, do not fall under the term of 'capital goods'.Penal action was also proposed for availing the benefit of Modvat credit on these goods. Penal action also proposed for non-filing the RT 12 return within the time prescribed. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit in respect of capital goods on the ground that the goods, in question, do not fall under the definition 'capital goods' and necessary intimation regarding receipt of these goods was not filed by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules for l...
Kanthal Bimetals (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT337TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad by which he has confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 20,88,111.02 on electrical resistance wires drawn into thinner gauge out of imported ferrous base electrical resistance wires during the period from December 1978 to March 1983 as a result of classifying the same under Tariff Item 33B(ii) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as "electric wires" other than insulated wires instead of under Tariff Item 26AA under which the goods had been cleared under approved classification lists, as "steel wires".2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate raises three issues viz. (1) that the process of redrawing wire of thicker gauge into thinner gauge does not amount to manufacture as no new excisable commodity emerges as a result of such process and therefore, no duty is leviable on electrical resistance wires produced in the appellants' factory and in support of this contention, he reli...
Paliwal Glass Works Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT508TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 22-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellants only on the ground that in the invoices, the debit entry of PLA was not written.2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of these invoices on the various grounds such as the quantity of the goods is not mentioned in the invoices, value in rupees both in figure and words was not written, time of issue of invoices only is mentioned. Rate and amount of duty was not mentioned in the invoices.He submits that the Assistant Commissioner in the adjudication order specifically held that as per Notification No. 33/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994, the mention of PLA entry in the invoices is not required. He submits that the ld. Commissioner in the order-in-appeal perused the 5 invoices involve...
Ginni Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT982TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad upholding the order of the Additional Collector who had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 4,55,872.72 P as a result of denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 123/81 to items such as A.C. sheets, Air-conditioners, Fire-proof doors, Syntex Water Tanks, Flush doors, Lighting Accessories, Furniture, Fixtures and Typewriters brought in by the appellants who are a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (100% EOU) on the ground that these items are not covered by the expression 'Capital goods, components, raw materials, spares and packaging materials' used in the notification and do not satisfy the condition in the notification of being used in connection with manufacturing and packaging of articles, and imposing of penalty of Rs. one lakh.2. We have heard Shri T. Vishwanathan, learned Advocate and Shri V.M.Udhoji, learned DR. The chart filed by the appellants at Page 57 of the paper boo...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »