Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Gulabsundri Bapna Vs. Deputy Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)1110
ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.These cross-appeals, one by the assessed and the other by the revenue, emanate from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-III, New Delhi, on 16-12-1991 relevant to the assessment year 1988-89.2. Since both the appeals arise from a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 2947/Del/1992-Revenue's appeal3. The revenue in the first ground is aggrieved against the deletion of addition of Rs. 24,81,705 under the head capital gains. In order to understand the controversy in hand, it is sine qua non to mention the facts in brief. A piece of land measuring 24.1 acres at village Arkpur owned by the Government and managed by the Land Development Officer was given on lease on 19-3-1924 in favor of Shri Ram Singh Kabli under a registered deed. The lease was in perpetuity in the name of Delhi Pottery Works (P) Ltd. Shri Ram Singh Kabli kept only 5 acres ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN48(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excess of dividend reserve available after adjusting the actual amount of dividends declared should be included in the capital base for the purpose of calculating net chargeable profit under the Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the reserve for doubtful debts should be included in the capital base for the purpose of calculating net chargeable profit under the Surtax Act, 1964 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excess provision after taking into consideration the ta...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jai Singh Kothari
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2006)STR160
1. The Revenue has come up in appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24-9-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he had reversed the orders of Assistant Collector imposing penalties on the respondents for the failure to file the quarterly returns in time in respect of service tax as required under Section 70 of Finance Act. The facts leading to the appeal are as under : The respondents are stock brokers registered with Central Excise Department for the purpose of Service Tax under Section 69 of the Finance Act. They failed to file the quarterly returns for the quarters April to July, 1995, October to December, 1995, April to June, 1996 and July to September, 1996. They were served with two show cause notices dated 10-1-97 and June, 1997 for having contravened the provisions of Section 70(1) of the Finance Act. They thereafter filed the returns but no plausible explanation was offered for not filing the returns in time. The Assistant Commissioner through the Order-...
Atlas Radio and Electronics (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT385TriDel
1. In this appeal the assessee challenges the correctness of order-in-appeal No. 26/94 dated 6th July, 1994 passed by Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows.1.2 Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Sanwa India Multimeters falling under sub-heading No. 9030 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They are selling the goods through the regional depots situated outside the State as also at the factory gate. The sales at factory gate is at a higher price compared to the price at which goods are sold to dealers outside Gujarat. Department sought to assess duty on the price, at which the goods were sold at factory gate and not at the ex-depot sale price. Assessee used to file price list in part IV at a lower rate in respect of dealers situated outside Gujarat. The price in part I in relation to sale in Gujarat State was at a higher rate. Assessee contended before the authorities that buyers within the State of Gujarat and those si...
Jawa Pharmaceuticals (i) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT265TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of P & P medicines falling under Sub-heading No. 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. Officers of the Central Excise Preventive Unit visited their factory at Gurgaon on 25-9-1996 and, upon scrutiny of records and enquiry, detected manufacture and clearance of "physician's samples" of P & P medicines by the appellants to their marketing agency viz. M/s. Jawa Laboratories, New Delhi without payment of Central Excise duty. The value of samples so cleared during October, 1995 - September, 1996 was worked out at Rs. 50,28,692/- and the duty thereon at Rs. 7,29,557/-.The officers also resumed the 'material outward register' for 1996-97 maintained at the gate of the factory premises, and compared the entries therein with those in the excise records, and found substantial difference between the quantity of the excisable goods despatched as shown in the M.O. register and the quantity shown in the excise records. This difference of quantity of the go...
Mahajan Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT768TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s, Mahajan Engg.Works, is whether they are eligible to avail of exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E., dated 27-6-1997 prior to the date of filing option with the Assistant Commissioner.2. Shri Kulvindar Singh, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has denied them the exemption under the Notification No.38/97-C.E. during the period from 2-7-1997 to 10-7-1997 as per para 2(i) of the Notification the exemption is available only after they had exercised their option in writing for availing the exemption; that the Appellants came to know about the Notification only on 2-7-1997 and they had filed their option of availing the exemption on 11-7-1997; that the words "shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option" mean that the assessee has to intimate the date of exercising the option to the department; that it does not mean that the exemption would be available from the date the intimation about exercising ...
Bharat Pumps and Compressor Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT575TriDel
1. The appellants are a Govt. of India undertaking. They manufacture P.D. Pumps, Compressors and Gas Cylinders.2. They availed Modvat credit of duty-paid on Acetone used as input in the manufacture of metal Container (Gas Cylinders). They were issued a show cause Notice dated 16.04.1991 calling upon them to show cause why the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,55,661.71 availed on Acetone during the period April, 1986 to Feb., 1989 should not be disallowed and recovered from them under the provisions of Rule 57-I (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Act, as the Acetone cannot be considered as input in or in relation or to the manufacturing process of such Cylinders. It was alleged that the appellants availed the said Modvat credit in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57A read with Rule 57G and also wilfully mis-stated the facts contained in their declaration submitted under Rule 57G(1) about the actual nature of the use of the input - ...
Shri Madan Lal Vs. Late Sh. Bindraban Handa Through His Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)221; 89(2001)DLT653
ORDERKHAN, (J)1. Petitioner, a 75 year old retired Govt.servant filed Suit No.88/77 for possession of 650 Sq.yards of land under Khasra No.65/1 at Mauja Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Some defendants had filed the written statement and some had not and suit was posted on 11.4.78 for this. According to petitioner he reached the court late on that day because his bus broke down on the way and his suit was dismissed in default. He applied for its restoration on the same day and summons were issued on his application. All but respondent No.4 were served on this application and meanwhile he fractured his leg on 13.12.80 and remained confined to bed. He deputed his son to attend the proceedings on the next Along with a medical certificate but the court imposed costs of Rs.70/- for his absence and adjourned the case to 26.8.81. His son appeared in the court on this date but was told that Presiding Officer would sit in the afternoon. He allegedly handed over the cost amount to his counsel and...
Dr. Chakraverti Sandill Vs. Smt. Manju JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)247; 89(2001)DLT741
ORDERKHAN, (J).1. Petitioner is facing suit No. 204/97 for specific performance filed against him by respondents. The suit was decreed at one stage but was later remanded for expeditious retrial by this court and is now pending before Smt.Aruna Suresh, ADJ. 2. Petitioner wants its transfer from this because he entertains an apprehension that he would not get a fair deal there from. He alleges that Presiding officer had scolded his counsel and had summoned him from Bangalore to record admission/denial of documents which was otherwise not required and had proceeded on leave when he arrived from Bangalore to appear before the court. The plaintiff's counsel had also claimed that he was related to Justice J.D.Jain(Retd.). 3. Petitioner has failed in his first (sic) before Learned District Judge who has passed a detailed order, impugned herein, dealing with all allegations and contentions raised to dismiss his transfer application. 4. Sr.Counsel, Mr.Bansal appearing for petitioner argued tha...
Ramdayal Bishnol Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)990; 89(2001)DLT388; 2001(57)DRJ621; 2001(75)ECC514
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.(Oral)1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25.3.1994 delivered in Sessions Case No.158/93. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: 2. On 8th March, 1990 Inspector Niranjan Singh, SHO police station Kotwali at police post Red Fort received secret information that one person is scheduled to reach Bhure Shah Mazzar for selling opium. This secret information was recorded vide DD Entry No.14 by the SHO Niranjan Singh in the Daily Diary of police post Red Fort. A raiding party was formed comprising of SI Birjinder Singh, Head Constable Shabuddin, Constable Desh Pal and one public witness Paramjit Singh. 3. The accused Ram Dayal who on seeing the police party tried to run away but was apprehended and immediately thereafter the SHO Niranjan Singh told the contents of the secret information to the accused Ram Dayal. SI Sahdev Singh served a notice under Section 50 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »