Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 19 of about 277 results (0.019 seconds)The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Motor and General Financ ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)953
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) in ITC's 31/73 and 19/74, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short, the Tribunal): '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the rder of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner canceling the order of the Income-tax officer passed under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act?' 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that all the persons counted as one by the Income-tax Officer are not relatives of one another in terms of Section 2(41) and, thereforee such persons cannot be grouped as one person under sub-clause (ii) of Explanationn I of Section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)453
ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M.These appeals by the assessed relate to the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the only question in the appeals is whether the assessed is entitled to the deduction of the interest paid in respect of the amounts borrowed for the capital invested in the firm in which he is a partner, against the income by way of remuneration received by him from the firm.2. From the assessment year 1993-94, a new scheme of taxation of the firm and partners was introduced and briefly stated according to the new scheme, the firm itself was taxed at the maximum marginal rate and the partners were taxed in respect of their share income. However, the interest and remuneration paid by the firm to its partners which were allowed as a deduction in computing the firms taxable income were assessed in the hands of the partners who were in receipt of the same. Section 28(v) which was also introduced with effect from the assessment year 1993-94 provided that any remuneration due or receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Finance Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN183(Delhi)
Pasayat, CJ.Pursuant to the directions given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act in ITCs 31 of 1973 and 19 of 1974, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench E:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the order of the Income Tax Officer passed under section 104 of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that all the persons counted as one by the Income-tax Officer are not relatives of one another in terms of section 2(41) and, thereforee such person cannot be grouped as one person under sub-clause (it) of Explanationn I of section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the f acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sons and gra...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]245ITR807(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to the deduction in the computation of its business income of the following amounts of interest paid by the assessed for the non-payment in time of the sugarcane cess and the purchase tax payable by it : ItemAssessment year1966-67Rs.Assessment year1967-68Rs.Interest Payable on arrears of sugarcane cess78.18562.092Interest Payable on arrears of purchase tax12,20310,59690,38872,688In the assessor's own case a similar question came up for consideration of this court (see Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]157ITR683(Delhi) ). The question was answered in favor of the assessed and again...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Kundan Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN73(Delhi)
At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Delhi Bench 'B'.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing deduction of the additional sales tax liability of Rs. 2,58,032 as per the sales tax order dated 12-3-1962 even though the assessee-firm stood dissolved on 13-12-1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction for bonus liability of Rs. 1,35,373 which accrued under the order of the Uttar Pradesh Government dated 1-5-1962 even though the assessee-firm stood dissolved on 13-12-1961 ?'2. None appears for the assessed despite notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue.3. The Tribunal's finding so far as the first question is concerned is as follows :'Next contention is about the disall...
Tag this Judgment!Wavetronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC125
1. The issued involved in this appeal is whether the two-in-one manufactured by M/s. Wavetronics are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.2. When the matter was called Shri Sanjeeve Kumar sought adjournment without giving any valid reasons. As the appeal pertains to the year 1991 and the matter is coining on board since August, 1999 and being adjourned on the request of the Advocate and as no proper reason has been advanced for seeking adjournment, we refuse the request for adjournment and take up the appeal for disposal after hearing the learned D.R. and perusing the records.3. The Appellants have mentioned, in their memorandum of appeal, that they are a registered small scale unit, manufacturing two-in-one which are cleared by them by putting a fancy model No. 'National RXC40F'; that Assistant Collector, under Adjudication order dated 2-7-1989, denied them the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., holding that the brand 'National' was wor...
Tag this Judgment!India thermit Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT312TriDel
1. These two applications are praying for waiver of pre-deposit of following amount of duty confirmed and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, under the impugned order No. 1/2000, dated 31-1-2000 :- Name of the Party Duty Penalty The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd. 62,60,022/- 62,60,022/- Sh. Alok Nagory, 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate submitted that The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd. manufacture Thermit portions and Thermit welding equipments which were classified by them under heading 38.10 and under various sub-headings of Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, respectively; that around 20% of their production of Thermit portion is sold by them to Railways and 'remaining 80% is used by the appellants in the Rail jointing work on contract basis; that the demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed for the period January, 1994 to 12-9-1996 and penalties have been imposed by the Commissioner holding that the price at which Thermit porti...
Tag this Judgment!Jay YuhshIn Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC407
1. This matter has come up before this Larger Bench on reference by a Two Member Bench vide Miscellaneous Order No. 26/2000-A dated 11-5-2000. The Referral Order was made while hearing an Appeal filed by M/s. Jay Yuhshin Ltd. against Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi by which a duty demand of Rs. 55, 91, 225/- was confirmed against the assessee under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and an equivalent amount of penalty imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Act apart from holding that interest on the aforesaid amount of excise duty will also be payable by the assessee under Section 11AB of the Act.2.The Referral Order had noted that there was a conflict of views between different Benches of this Tribunal on the question raised before the Bench, viz., that in a case where the Department alleges intention to evade payment of duty, whether it was sufficient if the assessee shows that he had an alternative procedure available to him...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sunflame Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC757
1. M/s. Sunflame Industries, Faridabad, manufacture "electric coil stove" which is liable to central excise duty under chapter sub-heading 8516.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under notification No. 160/86-CE dated 1-3-1986 as amended from time to time, the Central Government fixed different rates of duty on various electrical and electronics machinery and equipment. A duty of 20% ad valorem was fixed on 'do-4 mestic electrical appliances, the following'. Entry (x) of electric appliances listed thereunder read as follows:- "(x) Hot plates, grillers, boiling plates, plate warmers, food warming trays, food warming trollies, hot food cabinets;".'Other domestic electrical appliances' figured under another heading and those electrical appliances were subject to nil rate of duty.2. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether 'electric coil stoves' manufactured by M/s. Sunflame Industries should be treated as 'hot plates' or whether they remained exempt under the category of 'other ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC124
1. Tribunal vide Stay order No. 37/2000-B dt. 4.2.2000 directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs within 12 weeks and the case was listed for compliance on 9.5.2000. On 9.5.2000 the applicants filed a Miscelleneous Application for modification of the stay order and the same was dismissed by Miscelleneous order No. 74/2000-B dt.9.5.2000 and further time for reporting compliance was granted Today the Applicants has not produced any evidence to show that they had complied with the stay order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellants is dismissed for non-compliance under the provision of Rule 35-F of the Central Excise Rule, 1944....
Tag this Judgment!