Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 5 of about 265 results (0.021 seconds)Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anatronics General Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)210; [2001]113TAXMAN511(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J.In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), order of the Tribunal, New Delhi, in IT Appeal No. 6110 (Del) of 1995, dated 16-12-1998 is under challenge, in respect of the question as regards the rate of depreciation on the bottles given on lease to another concern. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1987-88.2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows:The assessee-company supplies bottles to other concerns on lease basis. For the relevant assessment year, depreciation was claimed on bottles valued at Rs. 14,99,508 at the rate of 100 per cent. However, the assessing officer allowed depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent under the first proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. For disallowing the assessor's claim of depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent, it was observed that though bottles were plant, each bottle cannot constitute a plant and only all the bottles which were acquired can be taken...
Tag this Judgment!Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]251ITR710(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN814(Delhi)
1. In this appeal under Section 260A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), passed in I. T. A. No. 810/Delhi of 1997 dated February 26, 1999, is under challenge. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92. 2. The background facts are as under : The original assessment had been completed under Section 143. But subsequently proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of certain documents which were seized during a seizure operation conducted on March 12, 1994, in the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment : 'A search and seizure operation was conducted on March 12, 1994, in which certain incriminating documents were seized. Page 4 of annexure A-14, a photocopy of which is placed on record, discloses that S. Balbir Singh has paid by cash Rs. 14 lakhs and Mr. Ramesh Sindwani paid by cash Rs. 2 lakhs on different ...
Tag this Judgment!Computer Aid Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT68TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a demand of duty and imposing penalty under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA) and also confiscating goods of foreign origin, with option for redemption thereof on payment of redemption fine, and imposing penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise officers, who visited the appellants' premises on 15-7-1994 and searched the premises, found that the party was engaged in the manufacture and sale of computer sets falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 8471.00 of the Central Excise Tariff without necessary registration with the Central Excise Department and without observing other necessary formalities under the CESA and the Rules thereunder; that the appellants were also found to have engaged in the purchase and sale of various computer accessories of foreign origin without any documents evidencing l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suzuki Processors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT638TriDel
1. By order-in-appeal No. 312(KDT)CE/JPR-II/2000, dated 28-3-2000, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority. Revenue challenges this order passed by the appellate authority. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows : Respondent is a job worker doing work on grey fabric supplied by the traders. He was paying duty on the materials worked upon by him on the basis of the value of grey fabrics declared by the trader. Subsequently it has come out that the trader was mis-declaring the value fixing it at a lower rate. Thereupon, the department issued show cause notice to the respondent for realising the differential duty.After hearing the respondent, the job worker, the adjudicating authority fixed the correct price of the grey cloth supplied by the trader and found that differential duty claimed in the show cause notice was payable by the assessee. Accordingly, differential duty of Rs. 20,434/- was directe...
Tag this Judgment!Premnath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT458TriDel
1. Appellant, M/s. Premnath Diesels Private Ltd. is acting as Distributor for M/s. Detroit Diesel Overseas Distribution Corporation, USA, M/s. Allison Transmission Division of M/s. General Motor Overseas Distribution Corporation, USA, M/s. Delco-Remy/A.C. Division of M/s.General Motors Overseas Distribution Corporation, USA and M/s. Twin Disc Inc. USA. Appellant gets goods imported from those companies and stock them for retail sales to actual users. Over and above this activity they act as Indenting Agent of the goods manufactured by the abovesaid companies for third parties. In case goods are imported by third party, invoice is raised by the foreign principals adding commission. Commission so collected by the principals are passed on to the appellant by credit note. In certain transactions the principals realises distributors price from the actual users and direct them to pay the appellant commission in local currency. Commission so received by the appellant works out to be at the 6...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kesharbai Electronic Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT851TriDel
1. Revenue, as appellant, challenges order-in-original No. 431/CEX/93, dated 31-12-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. Short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows.Respondent, M/s. Kesharbai Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmednagar, are engaged in the manufacture of 'Power Controllers'. They are registered small scale unit. They were selling their entire stock to M/s. H.V.Industrial Electronics, another private limited company. The goods manufactured by the respondent were having the brand name of H.V.Industrial Electronics. H.V. Industrial Electronics had a price list for sale of branded goods to the dealers. Respondent sold their produce to H.V. Industrial Electronics at 40% discount. While those goods were sold by H.V. Industrial Electronics, they passed on 25% discount only to the dealers. On this count, show cause notice dated 12th November, 1992 was issued claiming a differential duty amounting to Rs. 7,47,096.59 in relation to the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Raaj Unocol Lubricants Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT516TriDel
1. Common issues are involved in the above 13 appeals which are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. Details of the appeals are as under:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl.No. Appeal No. Adjudication Order Duty demand Penalty No. & date1. E/23/96-NB 105-111/95/5-10-95 2,82,25,4317- 3 lakhs E/33 to 38/96-2. E/1193-1198/96- 64 to 69/96 23/24- 1,84,16,205/- 3 lakhs NB 5-96 Order-in-Original No. 105-111/95 covers 7 show cause notices, details of which are given below:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Show cause notice Period of demand Amountdated--------------------------------------------------------------------------------30-12-1994 2-7-1994 to 31-7-1994 24,93,871.7328-6-1995 January 1995 73,76,562.00-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second adjudication order covers 6 show cause notices, details of which are furnished ...
Tag this Judgment!Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT171TriDel
1. Appellants sell part of their goods from their depots. From 28.09.96, depots became places of removal on account of the amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and excise duty became payable at the depot price. However, there was no change made in the law with regard to provisions relating to time of removal. Therefore, duty was payable at the price prevailing at the depot at the time of removal from the factory. This legal position has been upheld in our decision in the case of Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (118) E.L.T.35 (Tribunal)]. The present appeals relate to refund applications made by the appellants. The ground for refund was that the goods were eventually sold from the depots at a price lower than the price at which the duty was paid at the time of removal from the factory. The refund applications were rejected by the lower authorities holding that the payment of duty initially made at the time of removal from the factory was correct and the sale pric...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Bhati Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ393
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This application is offshoot of judgment dated 21st May, 1993 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2292 of 1987. By aforesaid judgment, a writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed with costs. What compelled the petitioner to file the aforesaid writ petition may be recapitulated first by stating those necessary facts which have bearing on the present CM. 2. Petitioner is a nonresident Indian. He had left and went to Riyadh in South Arabia in February, 1982 on getting employment there. On 10th March, 1985 he visited India for 19 days. During his stay in India, he opened FCNR S.B. A/c No. 5810 for US $ 500/ with Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. On 17th July, 1985 from Saudi Arabia, he remitted a sum of US $ 35,000 in A/c. No. 9/85. Thereafter he remitted another sum of US $ 99,995/ by opening another A/c No. 10/85 on 10th August, 1985. On 10th September, 1985 Income Tax department wrote a letter to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank directing the Bran...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Dudadhar (M/S.) Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ237
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') prayer is for quashing the proceedings initiated as per show cause notices dated 9th July, 1999 and 5th November, 1999 issued by the Sales Tax OfficerRespondent No. 2 and Sales Tax Officer (Enforcement) Respondent No. 3 and penalty notice dated 12th November, 1999 purported to have been issued under Section 56 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short the Act). 2. Factual position which is almost undisputed presents some novel features. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. Its business premises were surveyed by the officials of Enforcement Branch on 14th May, 1999. Investigating officers were of the prima facie view that sales have been shown to alleged registered dealers who were nonexistent. Sales in respect of one M/s. Pratham International of Ward No.73 were subjected to further scrutiny and it was noticed that the registration certificat...
Tag this Judgment!