Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Peare Lal Sharma Memorial Trust

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)77ITD50(Delhi)

1. All these appeals by the Revenue rotate around the identical issues.For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of, by a common order.2. Pt. Peare Lal Sharma was a social reformer, a freedom fighter and an eminent lawyer. He died in jail in 1941. To perpetuate his memory assessee-trust was formed in 1950.2.1 The objects of the Trust are described in clause (2) of the Memorandum of Association. This reads as under :-- "(a) To perpetuate the memory of the great Indian patriot Pt. Peare Lal Sharma, Meerut. (b) To educate the Indian public on all subjects of the civic and national interest and generally to create and foster sound public opinion on all subjects of Indian importance on non-communal basis. (c) To provide a Hall, a Library, a Dispensary, Public Workers' Room and such other amenities as may be desirable and feasible. (d) To provide facilities for close social and political intercourse and means for promotion of physical and intellectual culture. (e) To ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Peare Lal Sharma Memorial Trust

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals by the Revenue rotate around the identical issues.For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of; by a common order.2. Pt. Peare Lal Sharma was a social reformer, a freedom-fighter and an eminent lawyer. He died in jail in 1941. To perpetuate his memory assessee-trust was formed in 1950.3. The objects of the trust are described in cl. (2) of the Memorandum of Association. This reads as under : "(a) To perpetuate the memory of the great Indian patriot Pt. Pearey Lal Sharma, Meerut. (b) To educate the Indian public on all subjects of civic and national interest and generally to create the foster sound public opinion on all subjects of Indian importance on non-communal basis. (c) To provide a hall, a library, a dispensary, public workers room and such other amenities as may be desirable and feasible. (d) To provide facilities for close social and political inter-course and means for promotion of physical and intellectual culture. (e) To provide f...

M/S. J.N. Textiles Vs. M/S. Bon Chance and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)860; 2000(3)ARBLR490(Delhi)

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. These are Objections filed by the Respondent/Objector for the setting aside of the Award dated 9.3.1995 published by Shri Mahender Pal Goel, Sole Arbitrator. The Objector has contended that there was no Arbitration Agreement subsisting between the parties. The clause relied upon by the Petitioner can be found printed on its Bills. It states that 'any dispute regarding this bill shall be referred to the Arbitration of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association or their appointed Judge Tribunal and the decision shall be binding upon both parties'. The Respondent/Objector has further contended that the Award deserves to be set aside since it emanates from a unilateral Reference, since the Respondent/Objector had not consented to the Arbitration. Both these points are no longer rest integra. Three Learned Single Judges have come to the same opinion on this subject; it is well-settled. In Tikkanlal Sewaram v. Jiwandas Desraj 1980 RLR 681, S.B. Wad, J. had held that wh...

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)97

ORDERR.K. Gupta, A.M.This is an appeal by assessed against the orders of the Commissioner (Administration) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act relevant to assessment year 1995-96. The following grounds have been taken by the assessed in its appeal :'1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner (Administration), Delhi III, New Delhi erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that order dated 12-3-1998, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue .2. That, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner erred in directing the assessing officer to disallow deduction of Rs. 78,80,125 representing advance excise duty paid and reflected under the head 'loans & advances'.3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner erred in directing the assessing officer to exclude 90 per cent of the interest income of Rs. ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peare Lal Sharma Memorial Tru ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Del)197

ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, J.M.All these appeals by the revenue rotate around the identical issues. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of., by a common order.2. Pt. Peare Lal Sharma was a social reformer, a freedom-fighter and an eminent lawyer. He died in jail in 1941. To perpetuate his memory assessee-trust was formed in 1950.2.1. The objects of the trust are described in clause (2) of the Memorandum of Association. This reads as under :'(a) To perpetuate the memory of the great Indian patriot Pt. Pearey Lal Sharma, Meerut.(b) To educate the Indian public on all subjects of civic and national interest and generally to create the foster sound public opinion on all subjects of Indian importance on non-communal basis.(c) To provide a hall, a library, a dispensary, public workers room and such other amenities as may be desirable and feasible.(d) To provide facilities for close social and political inter-course and means for promotion of physical and intellectual ...

Pcil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC700

1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the classification of "SC 1000 ThermaCam IR Focal Plane Array Radiometer SN-17" imported by the appellant vide Bill of Entry No. 585053 dated 13-10-1997. The importers initially classified the items under Heading No. 9015.80. Subsequently they classified it under 9027.30. The assessing authority however classified it under heading No. 9006.59.2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR for the respondent Commissioner.3. Appellants contend that the authorities below have gone entirely by one part of the description of the item given in the product literature where in the word 'camera' has been used in describing one of the features of the item. The appellants' contention is that the capturing of images (as done in a camera) is only one of the features of the equipment, among many others. The disputed item was infact an instrument for measurement of temperature and analysis of thermal images b...

Crop Care Pesticides India Pvt. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT895TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Pesticides. They manufacture pesticides under their own brand name and 'Agr Evo', marketed by M/s.Hoechst Schering Agr Evo Ltd. 2. Appellants claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.93, including on the goods which bore the mark 'Agr Evo'.The proceedings impugned in this appeal have held that the pesticides which bore the mark 'Agr Evo' would not be eligible for the exemption in view of para 4 of Notification 1/93 and Explanation IX to the Notification. Accordingly, duty demand has been made in respect of those goods.3. Arguing the appeal before us today, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that 'Agr Evo' is a House Mark of M/s. Hoechst Schering Agr Evo Ltd. and not a Trade Mark. He submitted that the use of House Mark would not disentitle a SSI from the benefit of Notification 1/93. He referred in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceutials Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 1995 (75...

Accurate Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT880TriDel

1. These are two appeals. Since the issue involved herein is common in both these appeals, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The point to be considered in these cases is whether steel cycle balls are classifiable under Chapter heading 87.14 as claimed by the party or under 84.82 as per the department.4. It was brought to our notice that in the very party's case, the Tribunal has taken a view that the items are classifiable under 87.14 and exempted under Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 following the earlier decision in the case of National Engineering India Ltd., reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 588. It was also brought to our notice that the department has filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the case of National Engineering India Ltd., and the view taken by the Tribunal was affirmed by the Apex Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as reported under Courtroom Highlight at A-193 in E.L.T. Volume 88.5. Si...

M/S. Nirlex Spares Private Ltd. Vs. Cce, Rajkot

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT161TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Nirlex (sic) Ltd., the issue involved is whether they are (sic) the brand name of another person on the exc (sic) goods manufactured by them, whether exemption from (sic) of central excise duty under Notification No (sic) is available to such goods and whether M/s. (sic) Pvt. Ltd. are their related person.2. Shri Uday Joshi, learned Advacate (sic) with S/Shri Jitendra Singh and Sandeep Choks(sic) advocates, submitted that the Appellants (sic) Riderless Steel Healds and Flat Steel Healds (sic) their own brand name called 'INTATEX' and 'INTACO' (sic) being affixed/printed in corrugated boxed (sic) with hexagonal artitistical design (allegeo monogram (sic) to the marketing/company M/s. L.M.S Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (sic) this alleged Mongram was used only from 1.4.1990; that the goods manufactured by them were, however, not affixed with any brand name; that only the corrugated boxes in which the impugned goods were packed were printed with the artistical desi...

Hansalaya Properties Vs. Reservation Data Maintenance India Private Li ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)573; 86(2000)DLT734; 2000(53)DRJ595

ORDERVikramajit Sen.J.Vikramajit Sen.J.1. The claim in this suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for the recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per month for the period from January 1, 1999 to August 16,1999. In paragraph 15 of the plaint it has been stated that the Plaintiff seeks to recover by way of the present suit a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the Defendant on a written contract. It is not in dispute that a Lease Deed in respect of Flat No. 3-C and 3-G, Third floor, Hansalaya, New Delhi was entered into on 16th December, 1993 for a period of five year commencing from 17th August, 1993. It is also not in dispute that on the expire of this period, that is on 16th August, 1998, a fresh agreement of lease was executed between the parties. It is, however, seriously in contest whether this was for a period of four months or for a period of one year. The Defendant has contended that the Lease Deed was executed without its fr...