Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

B. K. Khanna and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]113TAXMAN164(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, CJ. In compliance with the directions given by this court by order dated 30-3-1978 in ITC No. 15 of 1975, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,') by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 paid to the two directors B.K. Khanna and K.N. Khanna is not an allowable deduction?'Factual position in nut shell is as follows:2. The assessed is a private limited company. It is a closely held company and its four directors are close relatives. For the assessment year 1966-67 relevant to the previous year ending on 31-8-1965, claim was made in respect of alleged payment of Rs. 30,000 to two of its directors, namely, K.N. Kharma and B.K. Khanna. The payment was purportedly made for agreeing not to carry on any further business of promotion of companies f...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ202

C.M. Nayar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 22, 1999 passed by K. Ramamoorthy, J. The respondent who served the Indian Army for more than 27 years sought premature retirement on the ground that he is to look after his mother afflicted with cancer and his father, a retired Air force Officer, who is visually handicapped.The respondent has given full particulars of the facts as well as other instances where officers similarly situated have been permitted to retire prematurely in his writ petition. However, the request of the respondent was rejected by Adjutant General and as a consequence he filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court.The learned Single Judge dealt with the question by first holding that it is the Central Government which is Competent Authority to deal with the acceptance of the premature retirement of the respondent. However, for the purposes of administrative convenience Adjutant General is given the po...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]247ITR35(Delhi)

1. Heard. 2. At the instance of the Revenue, 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' (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing deduction under section 80K of the Income-tax Act to the assessed-company ?' 3. In view of the undisputed position vis-a-vis the decision reported in CIT v. Goodyear India Ltd. [1994] 118 Tax 206 (Delhi) answer to the question referred has to be in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue. It is to be noted that in the said case entitlement of the company under Section 80J was decided. Additionally, we find that the applications under Section 256(2) of the Act in respect of some of the years involving similar issue have not been accepted. 4. The reference is disposed of accordingly. ...

Haldiram Foods Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD425(Delhi)

ORDERPer Chaturvedi, J.M. This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1994-95.2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 22,00,000 by resorting to the provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being part of the amount of investment not fully disclosed in the books of account.3. Briefly the facts :The assessee-company was incorporated on 29-10-1993. The authorised capital of the company as per the balance sheet as on 31-3-1994 (paper book page No. 76) was Rs. 5,00,00,000. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs. 40,12,700. Details of shareholders were furnished at page 25 of the paper book. Broadly the capital was contributed as under :Rs.1. Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal and his family members9,50,2002. Shri Madhu Sudan Agarwal10,12,2003. Employees3004. Three companies20,50,000 40,12,7004. The assessee-compa...

Anand Prakash Vs. A.M. Johri and 2 Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned 3 appeals are directed against a common order dated 2.3.2000, passed by District Forum-VII (Sheikh Sarai), in Complaint Case No. 426/99 entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma and Anr., Complaint Case No. 427/1999 entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma and Anr., and Complaint Case No. 323/1999 entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma and Anr., the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned three appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Anand Prakash had filed three separate complaints before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs, by way of loan, with Shri B.B. Sharma, Chairman, Hoffland Finance Limited, who gave him 100 Equity Shares of Indian Rayon Industries Limited; 100 Shares of India Petro-Che...

Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC426

1. In these four appeals, arising out of a Common Order Nos.140-43/2000 dated 3-3-2000, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), issue involved is whether the plastic hoses manufactured by the Appellants, M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., are classifiable under Heading 39.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under Heading No. 85.09 of the Tariff as claimed by the Appellants.2. Shri H.C. Daroowala, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Vacuum Cleaner and parts thereof, falling under Heading 85.09 of the Tariff; that Vaccum hose manufactured by them is an integral part of the Vacuum Cleaner; that the vacuum cleaner cannot function without the hose which is specially designed for use only with the vacuum cleaner, that the impugned hoses are not items of general use; that Note 1 (g) to Section XVI of the Tariff provides that this Section does not cover "Parts of general use, as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base met...

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT481TriDel

1. The appellants M/s. Cement Corporation of India manufacture portland cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have two factories -one at Kurkunta falling within the jurisdiction of Assistant Collector of Central Gulbarga Division in Bangalore Commissionerate and another at Rajban within the jurisdiction of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh. In both of these factories they used Rotary Kiln for the manufacture of cement and availed exemption under Notification No. 24/91 dated 25-7-1991 as amended which exempted Portland Cement from excise duty in excess of Rs. 185/- per tonne on terms and conditions as specified in the following Table and the provisos under it:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Description of factory ConditionsNo.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3)---------------------------------------------------------...

Dsm Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT809TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether rebate claim made under Notification No. 132/82-C.E., dated 21-4-1982 is to be treated as refund claim under Section 11B as concession extended to manufacturers under the Notification appears to be a refund.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. Under a Notification issued by the Government of India, the manufacturers were entitled to rebate of duty in case of production of sugar during the lean season was beyond a particular quantity. The Department alleged that rebate is refund and is not admissible in view of amendment to Section 11B. The authorities below held that rebate as admissible under the Notification No. 109/87 dated 10-4-1987 was a refund and therefore was to be examined in terms of amended Section 11B and is subject to examination whether the principles of unjust enrichment shall be applicable to this type of rebate.3. Shri Ashok Sagar, ld. Counsel s...

Mac Designers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC864

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. Mac Designers against the Order-in-Original dated 23.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise who had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 15,90,261 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on them. The Commissioner had also confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 26,63,825 alongwith penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on M/s. Mac Venetian through this very order, but they are not party before us in the present appeal.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. M/s. Mac Venetians are engaged in the manufacture of venetian blinds and vertical blinds classifiable under Chapters 76 and 66 respectively of the CETA. However, in the classification list effective from 7.12.89 they declared the vertical blinds being manufactured without the aid of power and claimed exemption from the whole of the duty under Notification No. 65/87 dated 1.3.87. This exemption was also accordingly claimed by them subsequently in the classificatio...

M/S. Nav Bharat Nirman Co. Vs. Director General of Works and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR48(Delhi)

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing, since a short question is involved. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the confines his prayer in the writ petition to prayer No.1 Prayer No.1 in the writ petition is in the following terms: 'That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing and commanding the respondents to restore the registration of the petitioner company in Class III (B&R;) Contractors with the CPWD w.e.f. 11.6.1989 in consonance of their own letter/memo no.C/14-2309-III (B&R;) dated 16.6.1986 and issue necessary notification in the matter.'3. Petitioner was duly registered as a Class III contractor with the respondents w.e.f. 5.9.1975. The respondent demoted the petitioner to Class IV w.e.f. 21.7.1977. The matter did not rest there. Vide another memorandum bearing No. DGW/CCN/D/94 dated 14.4.1986, petitioner was debarred from issuance of an...