Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 6 of about 254 results (0.020 seconds)Rohit Kumar and anr. Vs. Dalip Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)487
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking for passing a decree of possession with regard to the property bearing No. 16, situated at First Floor in Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, consisting of four rooms. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that on 2.12.1996 the defendant executed a receipt acknowledging the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the sale consideration as also other documents which included a General Power of Attorney and a Special Power of Attorney since the defendant was desirous of selling the property. 3. It is the plaintiffs' case that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that after receipt of the payment and also after the execution of various documents the defendant will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the aforesaid property. It is further the plaintiff's case that after receiving the payment and executing the various documents, the defendant contracted various other property dea...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi Ii Vs. the Punjab and Sind Bank L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)661; 86(2000)DLT438; 2000(54)DRJ370; [2000]244ITR393(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These four references are taken up for disposal, as they are closely interlinked. Accepting prayer for reference made by the Revenue following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'B' (In SHORT 'the Tribunal'). 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the equipments used in the assessor's business, such as counter, guns, steel equipments, steel furniture, electrical fittings and cooling equipments are to be treated as plant and machinery us 32(1)(ii) and Section 33 for the purpose of grant of depreciation and development rebate respectively. 2. Whether on the facts and in the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed bank is an industrial company for the purpose of rate of tax. 3. Whether on the facts and i...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Exports Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)725; 2000(54)DRJ178; 2000LC778(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The only question involved in this petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (in short the 'Scheme').2. According to the Petitioner it is entitled to benefits under the Scheme while the Respondents, stand is that the Scheme is only applicable to cases where a person has a liability in relation to customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act') which is due and payable. 3. Petitioner's case revolves round a communication received from the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (in short 'DGFT'), dated 6th August 1997 (Annexure-C). Under the Scheme even the amount payable comes within the ambit of the concession available. Respondents have taken a stand that the same has no relevance, and in any event that was not a demand notice under the Act and not even a show cause notice. 4. We do not find any substance in Petitioners' plea because the Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Power Generators Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)733; 86(2000)DLT490; 2000(56)DRJ175
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Order dated 26.8.1999 disposing of revision petitions under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short, 'the Act') and Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax ACt, 1956 (in short, 'the Central Act') forms subject matter of challenge in this wit petition. 2. Background in which the writ petition has come to be filed is as follows : Petitioner has been assessed to extra demands of Rs. 2,34,93,150/- and Rs. 1,43,44,384/- under the Act and Central Act respectively. Appeals have been filed against he said orders of assessment. Simultaneously an application for stay had been filed, The Additional Commissioner No. 1 directed payment of Rs. 20 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh respectively. By the impugned revisional order, the commissioner reduced the quantum to Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs respectively. An application for review of the order was turned down by the order dated 25.1.2000 However, time for deposit as stipulated by the earlier order was extended. 3. The gr...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Alarippu
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)932; 86(2000)DLT458; 2000(56)DRJ171; [2000]244ITR358(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Prayer for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) made by the Revenue was turned down by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-'C' (in short, the Tribunal) and hence this application under Section 256(2) of the Act. 2. Factual position so far as not in dispute is as follows: 3. assessed is a Society registered under Section 12A(a) of the Act. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1988-89. Prior to the said assessment period, all through assessments were completed under Section 143(1) at 'Nil' income. assessed is a voluntary group which in association with other voluntary organizations stages plays to educate people on various social problems. During the assessment year in question, the assessed Society had given Rs. 50,000/- to Mahila Haat to which the dispute relates. Application of income was held to be to the extent of Rs. 5,69,186/- as against Rs. 7,94,200/ claimed by the assessee, assessing officer he...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN487(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to the direction given by this court an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed and the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D for opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in fixing the valuation of closing stock of sugar at two factories at Rs.338 and Rs. 340 per quintal discarding the method of valuation adopted by the assessee?'2. For the assessment year 1969-70 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1969, additions were made by the revenue authorities to cover the under-statement of value of closing stock. There were two factories which were categorised as Factory No. 1 and Factory No. 2 by the revenue authorities for the sake of convenience. The Tribunal fixed the value by adopting Rs. 338 rate per quintal. The assessed could not explain before the Tribunal as to why the price of free sale sugar f...
Tag this Judgment!Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT184TriDel
1. In the impugned order Ld. Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 37,46,827/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar. In the process of manufacture of sugar molasses is generated as a by-product. Molasses are subject to levy of duty by the Central Excise authorities and subject to restrictions on sale by the State Excise authorities. The allegation against the appellant was that the appellant did not take adequate steps to prevent auto-combustion which the applicant claimed had set in while the molasses were stored in the storage tanks in the factory premises.3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Counsel submits that the appellant had stored molasses in pucca tank. He submits that when the summer season came, auto-combustion started inspite of the fact that there was continuous water spraying on the tanks. He submits th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kranes Kraft and Controls (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT515TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order in appeal dated 10-3-1994 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondents are M/s. Kranes Kraft and Control (P) Ltd. The matter relates to the availment of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986 when the last clearance towards the eligibility for full exemption was splited up partly towards exempted clearances and partly towards dutiable clearances. The appellate authority has taken a view that there was no restriction or stipulation in Notification No. 175/86-CE that any value in the gate pass could not be splited up in such circumstances.2. No one is present for the respondents. The notice has come back undelivered with the postal remarks "not known". It is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1992. The amount of duty involved is Rs. 10,443,84. The period of dispute is 3-9-1991. We are accordingly proceeding to deal with the matter on merits af...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. Diesels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT505TriDel
1. The facts of the case are that the authorities below had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,19,175.32 against the appellants on the ground that the balance of finished goods shown in monthly statements submitted to the Punjab National Bank differed from the balance of finished goods indicated in the RG 1 Register/register for production and sale, and that this difference represented the excess quantity of finished goods manufactured and cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed upon the appellants. The order was challenged before the Tribunal by filing of appeal No. E/1553/93-NB which was disposed of vide Final Order No.A/999/94-NB, dated 30-11-1994, in which the Tribunal held as under : "We find that the entire demand is based upon difference in figures of closing stocks between the RG 1 register and monthly bank statements. We agree with the learned Counsel that this piece of evidence alone cannot give rise to a duty demand on alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. U.P. State Yarn Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT747TriDel
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 21-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. The appellate authority has set aside the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise; Division-II, Allahabad in which he had confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 64,020.00 under Rule 57-1 on the respondents for availing ineligible Modvat credit. In one case the invoice for Rs. 45,320/- was endorsed in favour of the party. Another amount of Rs. 3,900/- of Modvat credit is taken wherein the invoice is in the name of the Head Quarters at Kanpur but the goods are consigned to the appellants. In the Order-in-Appeal it is stated that the respondents are a unit of U.P. State Yarn Co. Their Head Quarters Office and Administrative Office are at Kanpur. The company has its manufacturing units at Banda, Rasra (Ballia), Jaunpur and Meja (Allahabad). Orders for the purchase of fibres are placed from the Administrative Office at Kanpur but, the place where the goo...
Tag this Judgment!