Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

Naveen Textile Agencies Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1018TriDel

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The above appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 10,80,914.36 P.upon M/s. Naveen Textile Agencies (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 1) and imposed a mandatory penalty equal to duty amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon Shri Naveen Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 2) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of appellant No. 1, who are manufacturers of tents and parts thereof, was visited by the Central Excise officers on 28-4-1998 and physical stock verification of finished goods and scrutiny of records, resulted in detection of shortage of two different varieties of tents. The statement of appellant No. 2, Proprietor of the factory was recorded on the spot and he admitted the shortage and suo motu debited the excise d...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Madhya Bharat Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC261

1. The Revenue has filed the above application in terms of Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No. 519/98-C dated 2-7-98 : "Whether the items (i) Dandy Covers (ii) Dryer Felt, Press Felt, Industrial cloth, and (iii) Synthetic Wire, which are replaceable attachments to the paper making machinery and are used as parts for the functional operation of machine and can be said to be inputs in or in relation to the manufacture of the product or would get excluded from the purview of Modvat scheme by virtue of explanation to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules." 2. The facts of the case leading up to the filing of the Reference application are that the assessees herein are manufacturers of paper falling under Chapter 48 of the CETA 1985. Modvat credit availed by them on Dandy cloth Dryer Felt, Press Felt, Industrial cloth and Synthetic cloth used on paper machine was sought to be dis...

Mitsui Engg. and Ship Building Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)447

1. The appellant filed appeal against the order passed by the CIT (A) vide appeal No. 90/92-93 dt. 18th Feb., 1993. The appellant took various grounds in appeal which are reproduced as follows ; "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in taxing the amount of Rs. 45,846 as perquisite value of hotel accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer and in not accepting the assessee's contention that it is not taxable at all. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in enhancing the value of perquisite in respect of hotel accommodation from Rs. 28,653 as assessed by the AO to Rs. 45,846 thus resulting in enhancement of assessment without giving any opportunity at all to show cause against such enhancement. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not accepting the alternative ground of appeal that the value of this perquisite should have been taken ...

Ardee Finvest (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1996-97.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal, projects the following grievance :-- "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the receipt of Rs. 26.00 lacs as share application money from M/s. Hoovar Services Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant, ignoring the vital facts, submissions and documents on record." The assesscc-company was engaged in the business of finance and investment. It filed its return of income on 30-11-1996 declaring therein a loss of Rs. 10,160. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-lax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) on 5-11-1997. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. In the course of assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee had reflected r...

Ardee Finvest (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi, and relates to the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal, projects the following grievance : "That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the receipt of Rs. 26 lacs as share application money from M/s. Hoovar Services (P) Ltd. as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant, ignoring the vital facts, submissions and documents on record." The assessee-company was engaged in the business of finance and investment. It filed its return of income on 30th November, 1996, declaring therein a loss of Rs. 10,160. The return was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), on 5th November, 1997. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. In the course of assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee had reflected receipt of share application money pend...

Mitsui Engg. and Shipbuilding Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide appeal No. 90/92-93 dated 18-2-1993. The appellant took various grounds in appeal which are reproduced as follows :-- "1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in taxing the amount of Rs. 45,846 as perquisite value of hotel accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer and in not accepting the assessee's contention that it is not taxable at all, 2. Without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in enhancing the value of perquisite in respect of hotel accommodation from Rs, 28,653 as assessed by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 45,846 thus resulting in enhancement of assessment without giving any opportunity at all to show cause against such enhancement, 3. Without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not accepting the alternative ground of appeal t...

Mr. Surinder Singh Rekhi Vs. Smt. Harbir Kaur Rekhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)854

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. This suit for Declaration, Injunction and Specific Performance has been filed in respect of plot of land (suit land) measuring 6048 sq. yards situated in Khasra No. 224, in the Revenue Estate off Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. In the plaint it has been stated that the suit land was purchased by Sale Deed dated 21.8.1963 for a total consideration of Rs. 24,600/- by the Plaintiff and his brother late Birinder Singh Rekhi; the Defendants are the legal representatives of the latter. Thereafter, the suit land was used as a poultry farm by the two brothers which business was conducted by them as a partnership firm. This partnership was dissolved because late Birinder Singh had started another business venture in Faridabad and was in need of funds. The partnership was dissolved and the Plaintiff paid his brother late Shri Birinder Singh a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash in May, 1966 and a sum of Rs.17,065/- in cash on 6.9.1966. Since then the Plaintiff is in exclusive p...

Parmod Kumar Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(73)ECC375

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Detention of Parmod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu'), pursuant to the order of detention passed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Home (Police-II) Department of 5th April 1999, in purported exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is under challenge by this petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus by his wife Smt. Anita. By the said order, detenu was directed to be detained in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. The order was passed with a view to preventing detenu from smuggling goods.2. Though several grounds have been taken in the petition, at the time of hearing, it was urged that the grounds of detention were not served, as required under the Act, within the stipulated time. The grounds of detention and relied upon documents were supplied...

Ardee Finvest (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Del)378

ORDERM. K. Chaturvedi, V.P.This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal, projects the following grievance :'That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the receipt of Rs. 26 lacs as share application money from M/s Hoovar Services (P) Ltd. as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant, ignoring the vital facts, submissions and documents on record.'3. Briefly the facts :The assessee-company was engaged in the business of finance and investment. It filed its return of income on 30-11-1996, declaring therein a loss of Rs. 10,160. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), on 5-11-1997. Thereafter the case of the assessed was selected for scrutiny. In the course of assessment proceedings it was fo...

Mitsui Engg. and Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD481(Delhi)

The appellant filed appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide appeal No. 90/92-93 dated 18-2-1993. The appellant took various grounds in appeal which are reproduced as follows :"1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in taxing the amount of Rs. 45,846 as perquisite value of hotel accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer and in not accepting the assessee's contention that it is not taxable at all.2. Without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in enhancing the value of perquisite in respect of hotel accommodation from Rs. 28,653 as assessed by the assessing officer to Rs. 45,846 thus resulting in enhancement of assessment without giving any opportunity at all to show cause against such enhancement.3. Without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in not accepting the alternative ground ...