Delhi Court December 2000 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ram Education Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)220; [2001]250ITR504(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN832(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question, 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 was correct in law in holding that the business of the Jugnu activity was property held under trust for charitable purposes and income there from was to be exempted in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1972-73.3. The factual position in a nut-shell is as follows :The assessed is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, I860. The object for which the foundation was established was, inter alia, to furnish theoretical and practical education in business and science. In furtherance of the aforesaid objects, it was provided that the foundation may open schools, colleges and other educatio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)506; [2001]250ITR763(Delhi); [2001]166TAXMAN835(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referredthe following question, 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 legally correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 to cancel the Income-tax Officer's order dated February 28, 1977, passed under Section 154 ?'2. A brief reference to factual aspects would suffice :The assessed, who was an employee of the Central Government, joined the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short 'the 10C'), a public sector undertaking, where he was permanently absorbed. On his retirement from the Central Government Service, he received a sum of Rs. 9,714 towards the commuted value of l/3rd of the pension due to him plus a sum of Rs. 19,429 as terminal benefit calculated at twice t...
M.P. Bright Bars Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT139TriDel
1. The appellants, vide letter dated 8-12-2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merits. After hearing the ld. S.D.R., the appeal is admitted.2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The contention of applicants is that against the adjudication order, whereby the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed, the applicants filed appeal along with application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals), without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicants, passed an interim order and directed the applicants to deposit the duty amount. Thereafter, without issuing any notice, the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed vide impugned order. The applicants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Neo Sack Ltd. v C.C.E. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 522 (M.P.).3. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was dismissed without affording an opportuni...
Wavetronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC340
1. Vide Final Order No. 1073/2000-B dated 12.7.2000, the above appeal was heard on merits and rejected.2. The learned Counsel Shri Rajesh Jain states that he was unable to be present during the hearing of the appeal, as after he had reached the Tribunal for attending the same, he received a phone call from his residence to attend to some urgent work. He submits that his clerk had been told to mention to the Bench the reason for Counsel's non-appearance but the Clerk could not explain to the Bench, which heard the learned DR and passed the order. In these circumstances, he prays that the final order of the Tribunal may be recalled and appeal fixed for hearing once again on merits.3. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR who submits that all the issues arising in the appeal have been considered while passing the order and no ground has been made for recall of the order.4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are satisfied with the explanation offered by the learned Counsel,...
Teekay Menthon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC608
1. The duty demand in the present case has arisen on account of denial of assessment in terms of Notification No. 245/83 to the appellant. The appellants are manufacturers of P&P medicines and sought assessment of their goods under Notification No. 245/83. That notification had permitted assessment of the goods at the marked price minus 15%.However, the exemption was subject to the condition that the appellant availed himself of that notification in respect of all medicines manufactured by him. The appellant in the present case sought assessment of certain other medicines on the basis of wholesale price also. The Assistant Collector, thereupon, held that the appellants could not avail themselves of Notification No. 245/83 in respect of one set of medicine and assessment under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in respect of other medicines. Therefore, he denied the benefit of deduction of 15% and demanded duty accordingly. The learned counsel representing the appellants today sub...
Sunil Silks Mills and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC196
1. The main issue in these appeals is whether M/s. Sunil Silk Mills manufactured and clandestinely removed 56.5 lakh metres of cotton and man made fabric. A duty demand of Rs. 53 lakhs has been made on the ground that this quantity of fabrics have been clandestinely manufactured and cleared by them. The main evidence relied upon for the allegation was that the Central Excise Authorities had recovered R-Forms showing the receipt of export of this quantity by the said processor. Learned Counsel representing the appellant has submitted that a demand based on R Forms alone is not sustainable at all and she seeks setting aside of the demand based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1978 ELT (J 172). Regarding the merits of the case, learned Counsel submitted that R Forms are under the octroi rules and those forms show import into Bombay of grey fabric as well as export out of Bombay of processed fabrics. She submitted that in the inst...
Hindustan TIn Works Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC616
1. The appeal is directed against duty demand of Rs. 1,33,000 and penalty of Rs. 50,000. The appellants manufactured metal containers for several Industrial Companies. M/s. Sandoz India Limited is one of them.The appellants got into a contract for manufacture and supply of 15 lakh mental containers to M/s. Sandoz India. The buyer Sandoz India advanced them Rs. 44,21,490 in a staggered manner for procurement of raw-materials payment of customs duty etc. The Central Excise Authorities held that the price adopted for assessment initially was a depressed price as it did not take into account the effect of the advance received. The orders demanding the duty and imposing the penalty followed. The appellant is aggrieved by those orders and is before us. It has been contended that in the present case the Central Excise Authorities has compared price to other buyers with the price to Sandoz India, even though the contracts covering both were not of comparable time. The price difference also is...
Virender Kumar @ Gara Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)319
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Prosecution charged the appellant Virender Singh for murdering Raj Kapoor son of Partap Singh PW on 25th May, 1991. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the testimony of Partap Singh (PW-5) father of the deceased, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Aggrieved by the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 8th July, 1994 the present appeal was preferred, inter alia, on the grounds that independent witness Surinder Singh (PW-1) has not supported the case of the ...
Smt. Radha Rani Bhadauria Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)565; 94(2001)DLT355; 2001(58)DRJ761
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to have got a Will in her favor executed by Smt.Rukmani Bai, widow of late Sh.K.B.Hardasani who was a member of respondent No.2/Society. The Will has been probated. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. which is Respondent No.2 in the present case refused to executed a sub-lease in favor of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.3. Objections taken by respondent No.2 are two fold. Mr.Bhushan counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that any transfer of the right under membership by the widow of Late K.B.Hardasani is inconsistent and contrary to the terms of allotment of land in favor of respondent No.2. He has further contended that no member can enter into speculative transaction and, thereforee, the respondent No.2 is not under an obligation to execute a sub-lease in favor of the petitioner and has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of thi...
M.G. Mahindru Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ564; [2001(91)FLR545]
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.Petitioner retired as a Central Government officer and under the. policy of the Government was entitled to reimbursement by the Government regarding his illness. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1996, the petitioner was referred by consultant in RML Hospital to the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre for coronary angiography. On 1.10.1996 the petitioner was accorded permission for heart surgery vide letter dated 1.10.1996. The total cost of surgery incurred by the petitioner was Rs. 2,08,270/-. The respondents have reimbursed only Rs. 1,27,650. The balance of the amount of Rs. 80,620/- has not been paid to the petitioner.2. Aggrieved by non-reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has raised all the amounts through loans from friends and relatives for his operation. At page 10 of the paper-book is the letter from Dr. R...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »