Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 7 of about 176 results (0.018 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagpal Optical Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)338
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue , following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for retrenchment compensation/gratuity of Rs. 35,838 represented an accrued liability for the assessment year 1972-73 and hence was an allowable deduction in computing the business profit of that year?'2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:Dispute relates to assessment year 1972-73 for which previous year ended on 31-3-1972. On 29-3-1972, individual notices for retrenchment of assessor's employees were served, inter alia, on the following terms :'As a result of constant dispute among the partners over the economic position of the concern it has now been decided to wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagpal Optical Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ809; [2001(89)FLR198]; [2001]248ITR665(Delhi); [2001]115TAXMAN169(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for retrenchment compensation/gratuity of Rs. 35,838 represented an accrued liability for the assessment year 1972-73 and hence was an allowable deduction in computing the business profit of that year ?'2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice :3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1972-73 for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1972. On March 29, 1972, individual notices for retrenchment of the assessed's employees were served, inter alia, on the following terms :'As a result of constant dispute among the partners over the economic position of the concern it has now be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NaraIn Dass
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]249ITR148(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (hereinafter referred to as '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 ?'We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.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 acti...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Dey Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)488; [2002]255ITR270(Delhi)
Aprijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is an official of U.N.O. under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act No. 46 of 1947 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from U. N. O. and writing in the newspapers was exempt being casual or nonrecurring in nature ?'2. The assessed had filed a 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 was comprised of :(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 U.N. for assignment in Bangladesh Rs. 24,972.3. The Income-tax Officer did not accept his stand about the income being casual...
Tag this Judgment!Dossa Harjee and Co. and ors Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC765
1. A Division Bench of this Tribunal vide its Miscellaneous Order No.M/57-607 2000-D dated 16.8.2000 has referred the following issue for consideration by Larger Bench: Whether the product of M/s. Simplex Mills Private Limited (Appellants in E/4413/93-D) viz. "filter cloth/grey coarse canvas" is classifiable under Chapter Heading 52.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the assessee or under Chapter Heading 59.09 of the said Schedule as claimed by the Revenue in relation to the period of dispute (1.9.89 to 30.11.91).2. The issue has arisen in view of conflicting decisions of the Tribunal with regard to the classification of filter cloth/grey coarse canvas. The Tribunal held in the case of M/s. Simplex Mills Co. (one of the appellants in the present proceedings) in its order reported in 1993 (49) ECR 147 (Tribunal) that the goods in question are classifiable under Chapter heading 5909 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Chapter 52 or Chapter 54....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Electro Services (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT828TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Issue relates to valuation.According to the department the respondents M/s. Electro Services (P) Ltd., are the related persons of M/s. H.V. Industrial Electronics Pvt.Ltd., company. Arguing for the Revenue Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR submitted that the appellant is a partnership concern consisting of two partners and the very partners are the Directors of buyer M/s. H.V.Industrial Electronics. Since the entire goods have been sold to M/s.H.V. Industrial Electronics using the brand name of M/s. H.V.Industrial Electronics, the assessee should be treated as a related persons of M/s. H.V. Industrial Electronics. He submitted that since the entire goods were sold to M/s. H.V. Industrial the later should be treated as a sole selling agent. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Snow White Industrial Corporation, Madras v. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T.360 (S.C.) in support of his contention...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. D.C.M. Toyota Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT227TriDel
1. By this application, the Revenue has submitted that the point of law reading as "Whether Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that 'tool kit' and 'jack assembly' supplied with motor vehicle can be treated as an input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944" arises out of the Final Order Nos. A/211-12/97-NB, dated 27-1-1997.2. The facts of the case giving rise to the above contention are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and supplied tool kits and jack assembly with motor vehicles. They supplied tool kits and jack assembly alongwith the motor vehicles. The Asstt.Commissioner held that Modvat credit was not available on tool kits and jack assembly supplied with motor vehicles. He accordingly confirmed the demand. Against this order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that tool kits and jack assembly are essential constituents to make the motor vehicles marketable and set aside the order of the Asstt...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Venkateshwar Synthetic (P) Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT114TriDel
1. The appellants availed modvat credit amounting to Rs.53,630/- on an endorsed Bill of Entry vide entry No.115 dated 30.7.94 in their RG.23A Pt.II on 4.10.94. The Headquarter's Anti-Evasion Party of Central Excise Commissioner, Jaipur visited their unit and on their advise, the appellants reversed the modvat credit. However, they filed a refund claim of this amount on 18.9.98. The only ground on which the refund is claimed is that the amount was debited by them under the pressure of the Anti Evasion party of Headquarters' office on 4.10.96. They contended that since the amount was got debited on the spot, no letter of protest was required to be filed. They contended that at the time of debiting the amount, they had endorsed a note that the same was being made under protest. Their claim is however, rejected by the Asst.Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur vide his Order dt. 15/18.1.99, in which it is observed that the party had contended before him that the said amount was subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Watch Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT823TriDel
1. The brief facts of this case are that the Officers of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur conducted search of the premises of the appellants on 24-4-1997. On search, Digital watch modules, Quartz watch modules, Watch dials and Wrist watches of foreign origin totally amounting to Rs. 92,700/- were recovered. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants which culminated in Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur passing the Order-in-Original dated 16-4-1999. The adjudicating authority in this order directed for dropping of the proceedings initiated against the appellants.2. Agrieved with the above order of the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) on evaluation of the evidence before him vide his order dated 20-6-2000, set aside the order passed by the original authority and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypee Bela Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT225TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal dated 14-3-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. At the time of construction of the plant for the manufacture of cement, the appellants undertook manufacture of cement concrete blocks and parts of cement machinery. They claimed benefit in terms of Notification No. 36/94 in respect of cement concrete blocks and similarly claimed benefit in respect of parts of cement manufacturing machinery in terms of Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995.3. The benefit in terms of Notification No. 36/94 has been denied on the ground that the manufacturing activitiy was carried out at the pre-cast yard which was quite away from the plant where the construction work was carried on. On this issue Shri G. Shivdass, ld.Advocate submitted that the very issue has already been conside...
Tag this Judgment!