Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Electro Mech Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT805TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against an order of Collector (Appeals) who has classified a Domestic Flour Mill without electrical motor under Heading 8437 which is manufactured by the Respondents.2. The grounds taken by revenue in appeal are; (a) Domestic Flour Mill without electrical motor after (sic) is correctly classifiable under Heading 85.09 because there is a place for electrical motor inside and it cannot be used without the same. The manufacturer does not provide the Motor on commercial grounds, which are not relevent for considering the classification. The decisions supply relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) apply to the Tariff prior to 1985 and the same is not relevant, since Chapter 85 Note 3 provides that Heading 85.09 covers electro mechanical machines of the kind commonly used for domestic purposes wherein food grinders and mixtures find mention without any weight restrictions.(b) The flour mill under consideration heading is a small type of grinding mill and Head...

Subhash Choudhury and ors. Vs. Nahar Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)549; 90(2001)DLT86; 2001(58)DRJ39

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of I.A. 10759/91, moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition. By the present application, they are seeking a restraint on the defendants 1, 2 and 11 to 14 from disposing of, transferring, selling, alienating or parting with possession in any manner property, ad-measuring 1700 sq.yards, falling in Khasra Nos.175, 176, 177 and 178, Sudhora Kalan, Delhi, bearing municipal No.1523 AB to 1528 AB, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi, during the pendency of the suit.2. For a proper appreciation of the dispute involved in this suit for partition, it would be necessary to notice the family lineage.Nainsukh Dass had three sons, Chaman Singh, Manohar Lal and Prabhu Singh. The joint property had devolved upon Chaman Singh and Prabhu Singh while Manohar Lal had separated out. The present dispute is between the descendants of Chaman Sing...

C.i.T.Delhi (Central) Vs. M/S.N.N.Mohan and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ635

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. (Oral).1. On being moved for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-B (in short 'Tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that the cost of acquisition of 3900 shares sold by the assessed during the previous year be taken at Rs.57,150/- in all for the computation of capital gains?'2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 3. assessed is an HUF. During the assessment year 1975-76, corresponding to the accounting year ending on 31st March, 1975, it sold 3900 shares of M/s.Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited for a sum of Rs.28,295/-. Income-tax Officer (in short 'ITO') noticed that these shares were out of a lot which had been thrown into the common hotch potch by its c...

Shri D.K. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)922; 91(2001)DLT753

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Authority that the petitioner was not entitled to deduction either in terms of Section 80RRA of Income Tax Act or Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner after his retirement from Steel Authority of Indian Limited as Executive Director became Advisor to M/s. Davy Mckee, U.K. vide their letter December 4, 1991 at a monthly remuneration of 600/- pounds sterling. The petitioner sought permission of the Reserve Bank of India which is at pages 22 to 25 of the paper book. The petitioner filed the tax returns for the assessment year 1993-1994 where the assessment order at page 28 of the paper book was passed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 80RRA of Income Tax Act before the Appropriate Authority.3. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), Central...

Raju Metal Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(81)ECC272; 2002(143)ELT515(Del)

ORDER1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal') granting partial stay while dealing with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of such order. Petitioner was assessed to extra demands of duty amounting to Rs. 1,08,35,181/-and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Central Excise Act, 1944. Same is under challenge before the Tribunal. By order dated 4th February, 2000 Tribunal directed deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from the date of order. It was directed that the matter was to come up on 9th May, 2000 for compliance. When the matter was taken up on 9th May, 2000 an application was filed for dispensing with the pre-deposit and for permitting the petitioner to furnish security bond for Rs. 25 lakhs. Tribunal did not accept this prayer and only extended the time for deposit by eight we...

D.K. Agarwal Vs. Government of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]115TAXMAN640(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing authority that the petitioner was not entitled to deduction either in terms of section 80RRA or section 80-0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner after his retirement from Steel Authority of India Ltd. as Executive Director became Advisor to Davy Mckee, U.K. vide their letter dated 4-12-1991 at a monthly remuneration of 600 pounds sterling. The petitioner sought permission of the RBI which is at pages 22 to 25 of the paper book. The petitioner filed the tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94 where the assessment order at page 28 of the paper book was passed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 80RRA before the appropriate authority.3. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue ), Central Board of Direct Taxes, is the ap...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.N. Mohan and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]115TAXMAN252(Delhi)

Pasayat, C.J.On being moved for reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, has referred the following question for opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that the cost of acquisition of 3,900 shares sold by the assessed during the previous year be taken at Rs. 57,150 in all for the computation of capital gains ?'2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.3. The assessed is an HUR During the assessment year 1975-76, corresponding to the accounting year ending on 31-3-1975, it sold 3,900 shares of Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 28,295. The Income Tax Officer noticed that these shares were out of a lot which had been thrown into the common hotchpot by its coparceners on 28-11-1970. According to the assessee, the c...

Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)700; [2001]250ITR268(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. In the writ petition filed the correctness of a search conducted in terms of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), and legality of an order under Section 142(2A) of the Act have been questioned. The legality of the search conducted on June 22, 1998, and July 7, 1998, is questioned on the ground that there was no proper authorisation for the search by a competent person in respect of the property, wherein the said search was carried out. But at the time of hearing no argument was advanced in respect of the second plea, i.e., relating to the order under Section 142(2A) of the Act.2. The background, as projected by the petitioner, is essentially as follows : The petitioner-company was incorporated on May 31, 1993, having its registered office at B-362/17, Gali No. 16, Block B. Bhajanpura, Delhi. On June 22, 1998, the Assistant Director of Income-tax, Unit IV (in short 'A.D.I.T.'), searched the premises C-397, Chadha Complex, Main Market, Bha...

Km. Aarushee Gupta and Others Vs. Western India Securities

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present petition, filed by the petitioners, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 13.1.2000, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 2484/99 entitled Km. Aarushee Gupta and Ors. v. Western India Securities Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. As per the case of the petitioners, as put forth by them, before the District Forum, the petitioners were the holders of series-I 20% unsecured redeemable bonds, issued by the respondent. The petitioners lodged those bonds with the respondent but the respondents had not redeemed the same despite repeated requests. In the complaint, filed by the petitioners it has been prayed that the respondent be direc...

Ms. Neena Gupta and Others Vs. Asia Television Network Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 13.1.2000, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 2887/99 - entitled Ms. Neena Gupta and Ors. v. Asia Television Network Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. As per the case of the appellants, as putforth by them, before the District Forum, the appellants had deposited amount in fixed deposits with the respondent. The amount so deposited by the appellants in the fixed deposit, was to be refunded together with interest after the date of maturity. Since the amount deposited by the appellants was not refunded by the respondent, even after the date of maturity, the appellan...