Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

M/S Saras International Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants, in October, 1995, imported from the United Kingdom 9500 pcs. of what was described as "Advertisement Material/Printed Card" in the foreign supplier's invoice dated 6.10.95. Claiming to have imported the goods under Open General Licence (in short OGL), they filed Bill of Entry dated 2.11.95 through their CHA describing the goods as "Printed Card (Advertisement Material)" and declaring assessable value as RS.6551.30 CIF on the basis of the invoice and other documents. The Shed Appraiser in the Air Cargo Unit (in short, ACU) of Customs, New Delhi examined the goods. With regard to valuation of the goods, he examined 3 Bills of Entry produced by the appellants showing the value of similar goods claimed to have been imported contemporaneously with the import in question. Nevertheless, the Appraiser proposed enhancement of assessable value of the goods imported by the appellants to Rs.4 per pc., which meant a total assessable value of Rs.38,000/- for the entire consignmen...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT141TriDel

1. The facts leading up to the filing of the above application are that the respondents herein, who are manufacturers of cement, filed periodical claims for refund of duty paid by them under protest in respect of clearances during the period 1-6-92 to 15-3-96. The claims were rejected by the lower authorities. On the respondents appeal, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 222/89 dated 6-6-89, allowed the appeal of the respondents and granted consequential relief holding that equalised freight is excludible from the assessable value. Before the implementation of the Tribunal's order, there was an amendment to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on 20-9-1991 as per which the amount of Central Excise duty claimed as differential duty was to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and not to be refunded to a claimant where the claimant failed to prove that the extent of such excise duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. Since the Tribunal's final order was not implemente...

Srf Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by assessee against the order dt. 24th March, 1998, of CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, relating to asst. yr.1994-95.2. The assessment in this case was completed on 26th March, 1997, under Section 143(3). The assessee had claimed hundred per cent depreciation on the assets purchased for Rs. 1.50 crores from M/s Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. and Rs. 2,23,23,329 purchased from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short APSEB) on 29th March, 1994, and 28th March, 1994, respectively. Each item purchased was costing less than Rs. 5,000 and were leased back to these parties from whom they were purchased and in this way 100 per cent depreciation was claimed on these two amounts, as stated above. The AO allowed the claim of the assessee. On examining the assessment record, the CIT(Admn.) was of the view that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.Accordingly, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to decide the issue af...

institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. S.K. Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1101; 2000(56)DRJ671

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short, the 'Act') by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short, the Institute'). 2. Background in which reference has been made is essentially as follows:- A complaint was made by the Joint Chief Controller, Imports and Ex-ports, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to be complainant) alleging that the certificate issued by Shri S.K.Jain (hereinafter referred to be respondent) was erroneous and he had issued the certificate without proper verification of books of accounts. M/s. Subramanian & Company had furnished a Statement of Export of leather goods including those of other manufacturers for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78, which were certified by the respondent along with their letter dated 05.12.1979. On the basis of Export Statement, the Export House Certificate was issued to M/s Subramanian & Company on 04.01.1980. The respondent had certified that he had checke...

Shri Krishan @ Satish @ Gitpitia Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ255; 2000(57)DRJ49

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Shrikishan Satish Gitpitia has assailed the order of detention dated 27th October,1999 passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act,1980 (hereafter called the Act) inter alia, on the grounds that lodging of two or three FIRs will not amount to 'prejudicial activities' nor would affect the 'public order'. At best it could be a law and order problem for which FIRs have already been registered. The extraordinary provisions of the Act could not have been invoked due to the lodging of these FIRs. Secondly there was no evidence to prove that petitioner pressurised or intimidated the witnesses. That in the ground of detention cases of 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1995 had been relied upon by the detaining authority, whereas in most of these cases he has either been acquitted or discharged. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised, we may have a look at the brief facts of this case. The Commissioner of Police found that petitioner was engaged in commi...

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. B. Ram Goel

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]111CompCas355(Delhi); 2000(57)DRJ27

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short, the 'Act'), made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short, the `Institute'). 2. Background in which the reference has been made is as follows. A complaint was made by Shri C.R. Irani, Managing Director, the Statesman Limited to the effect that Shri B.R. Goel (hereinafter referred to as respondent) had written a letter dated 01.11.1987 to the shareholders of the company for sale of their shares in the said company. Respondent acted dishonestly as he disclosed information which came within his knowledge because of professional engagement. Not only that he gave an erroneous and distorted picture of certain financial aspects but also the infraction was done when respondent was employed as auditor. On the basis of allegation made, the respondent was charged with the following:- (i) The respondent has been grossly negligent in the conduct of his profession...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Freewheels India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]248ITR689(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat C.J. :Pursuant to the directions by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this courtIn R.A. No. 45 (Delhi) of 1976-77 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee-company had a reasonable cause either in not filing the estimate of advance tax or for not paying the advance tax during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under section 273(b) for the assessment year 1967-68 and whether the provisions of section 212(3) are not attracted in this case ?'In R. A. No. 46(Delhi) of 1976-77 :'1. Whether, on the facts...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. NaraIn Dass

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)255; [2001]249ITR148(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. These three references involve identical questions which have been referred at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short 'the Tribunal'). The question, pertaining to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70; is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order annulling the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(a) for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 ?' 2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice. 3. In all these references the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the service of notice was not legally done because all the legal heirs of the deceased assessed were not notified and notices proposing to take action under Section 147(a) ...

S. K. Dey Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)488

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.At the instance of the assessee, following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessed is an official of UNO under United National (Privileges and Immunities) Act No. 46 of 1947 ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income from UNO and writing in the newspapers was exempt being casual or non-recurring in nature ?'2. The assessed had filed return for the assessment year 1972-73. In part 4 of the return, it was indicated that a total sum of Rs. 25,622 was not taxable and comprised of the :(a) Sundry payments received for articles in the press Rs. 1,050.(b) Honorarium for presiding over a seminar Rs. 100.(c) Casual income received from UN for assignment in Bangladesh Rs. 24,972.The Income Tax Officer did not accept his stand about the income being casual and non-recurring. The ma...

Srf Ltd. Vs. Dy .Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)648

ORDERSale and lease back transaction--Allow ability of depreciationCatch Note:Assessee purchased assets costing less than Rs. 5,000 from J and A and leased back to them--Hundred per cent depreciation allowed by assessing officer after verifying details-- On examining assessment record, Commissioner was of the view that order of assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue--Accordingly, matter was restored to file of assessing officer to decide issue after considering directions and observations of Commissioner--Same was not justified as there was just difference of opinion--Accounts were settled and incorporated in regular books of account and the same were produced before assessing officer and after examining purchases and other agreements claim was allowed--There was no collusiveness in agreements entered by assessed with parties--Therefore, order under section 263 set aside.Ratio:In case of sale and lease back transaction, accounts were settled and incorpor...