Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments

Nirmal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT55TriDel

1. found finished goods in the appellants' factory in excess over the recorded balance in RG.l Register. Raw-materials were also found unaccounted, in the absence of any records having been maintained by the appellants in respect of raw-materials. Both the finished goods and raw-materials were seized. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the finished goods and raw-materials with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000.00. That order also confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,615/- on the confiscated finished goods. In the appeal filed by the aggrieved party against the order of adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the aforesaid demand of duty on the finished goods and consequentially set aside the confiscation of the said goods and imposition of redemption fine in respect of such goods. However, the order of confiscation of the raw-materials was upheld by the lower appellate authority on the ground of non-accountal. The rede...

National thermal Power Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Under s. 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961, the Special Bench was constituted to consider the following additional grounds of appeals : "(1) The sum of Rs. 22,84,994 deducted from 'Statement of expenditure during construction' cannot be included in the total income. (2) It is contended that on admission (erroneous), no income (the sum of Rs. 22,84,994) can be included in the total income. (3) The authorities below have erred and failed in their duty in not adjudicating the facts and evidence on record and mechanically including Rs. 22,84,994 in the total income. (4) Your appellant craves leave to add, amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts and history of the case are as under. During the asst. yr. 1978-79, the assessee had deposited its funds which were not immediately required on short-term deposits with the banks. Interest received on such deposits during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1978-79 amounted to Rs. 22,84,994. This was offer...

institute of Trade and Industrial Development Vs. Delhi Development Au ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)106; AIR2001Delhi21; 87(2000)DLT700; 2000(56)DRJ615

ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 12th February, 1988 issued by the Deputy Director, DDA intimating the petitioner that cost of the institutional land had been raised by the Government of India from Rs. 8,00,000/- to Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and directing the petitioner to deposit a further sum of money as stipulated in the said letter. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 20.12.1988 whereby the petitioner was further informed that the cost of the institutional land had since been revised by the Government of India from Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to Rs.23,75,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and in that view of the matter directing the petitioner to deposit a further sum of amount as contended therein. 2. The petitioner had challenged the legality of the aforesaid letters on the ground that the respondent has no jurisdiction to unilaterally increase price of the land in an arbitrary,...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandora Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]246ITR624(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that under Section 80J(3), the assesseewas authorised to claim deduction under Section 80J at any time within a period of seven years from the initial assessment year ?'2. Since the question depends upon the interpretation of Section 80J(3), reference to the factual aspects in detail is unnecessary.3. The reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee, a private limited company, filed a return showing income of Rs. 8,164. In the original return no claim under Section 80) of the Act was made. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on July 29, 1972, in which a claim was made. In the revised retu...

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]246ITR602(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Since these three references involve identical questions, our order will govern each one of them.2. On the basis of the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B ('the Tribunal' in short), has referred the following question, pertaining to the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs. 3,34,711 in the assessment year 1970-71, Rs. 4,32,620 in the assessment year 1971-72 and of Rs. 3,62,910 in the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is deductible in the computation of the capital of the company under Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the said three assessment years ?'3. Referring to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele and S...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Narendra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]246ITR579(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for opinion 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') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lease money obtained by the assessed from the letting out of the machinery on hire of the rotary printing press constituted 'business income' and not 'income from other sources' and in further directing the Income-tax Officer to allow development rebate and double shift allowance on the said machinery ?'2. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessed received certain amounts on letting out of imported rotary press which he had imported. The machine was not used by the assessed in his own business but was let out on a monthly rent. It is to be noted that the assessed was not carrying on any business durin...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Narendra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]246ITR579(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat C. J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lease money obtained by the assessed from the letting out of the machinery on hire of the rotary printing press constituted 'business income' and not 'income from other sources' and in further directing the Income Tax Officer to allow development rebate and double shift allowance on the said machinery ?'2. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessed received certain amounts on letting out of imported rotary press which he had imported. The machine was not used by the assessed in his own business but was let out on a monthly rent. It is to be noted that the assessed was not...

Om Parkash Kapoor and anr. Vs. Special Addl. Director of Enforcement a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ505; 2001(73)ECC50

J.B. Goel, J.1. These two appeals under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'the FERA 1973') arise out of the common judgment dated 1.7.1977 in Criminal Appeals No. 304/73 and No. 75/74 passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (for short 'the Appellate Board'). These appeals have arisen out of the order/judgment dated 15.10.1973 passed by the Special Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (for short 'the FERA 1.947').The learned Special Additional Director had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 23 of the FERA 1947 for contravention of Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and S.23B of the said Act against the following four persons:-1. M/s. Kapur Sons & Company, a partnership firm;2. Mr. O.P. Kapoor, as Organiser;3. Mr. Arun Kapoor, Partner; and4. Mr. K.K. Puri, as Manager;a partnership firm, organiser, partner and Manager of the partnership firm who had organized and staged...

Sanjeev Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ268; (2001)IILLJ685Del

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. On 10.6.1991 this petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court seeking direction against Delhi Electric supply undertaking [respondent No. 6(a) to treat the petitioners as having been appointed in the office of Assistant Controllers/Assistant Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-3,275 from the date of their initial appointment on the generation/transmission wing as work charge employees; (b) to treat the petitioners, who are diploma holders as Assistant Controller Assistant Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-3,275 from the date of initial engagement, to pay them consequential benefits and to set aside letter dated 16.5.1991 regularising the services of some of the petitioners as Khalasis/Generation Mate Grade-11; and (c) to direct respondent No. 6 not to regularise the other petitioners as Khalasis/Generation Mate Grade-11. 2. After respondent No .6 filed its counter-affidavit on 20.8.1991, the...

National thermal Power Corporation Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commission ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Del)508

ORDERSikander Khan A.M.Under section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Special Bench was constituted to consider the following additional grounds of appeals'(1) The sum of Rs. 22,84,994 deducted from 'statement of expenditure during construction' cannot be included in the total income.(2) It is contended that on admission (erroneous), no income (the sum of Rs. 22,84,994) can be included in the total income.(3) The authorities below have erred and failed in their duty in not adjudicating the facts and evidence on record and mechanically including Rs. 22,84,994 in the total income.(4) Your appellant craves leave to add, amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. '2. The brief facts and history of the case are as under. During the assessment year 1978-79, the assessed had deposited its funds which were not immediately required on short-term deposits with the banks. Interest received on such deposits during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 amo...