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.
Ravi Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ231; 2000(72)ECC255
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.1995 of the Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.221/1994 arising out of the FIR No.53/92. Police Station Civil Lines under Section 20 of the NDPS Act whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and thereforee, by order dated 18.1.1995 sentenced him to 10 years RI with fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, Ravi Kumar, on 12.2.1992 at about 3 PM at T point Yamuna Marg, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, was apprehended by SI Rajinder Singh, who was present at the Lt. Governor house Court Lane on official duty when Excise staff met him by chance and meanwhile he received secret information that a Nepali boy would come from Budh Vihar and would go to Kashmere Gate along with charas. Information was red...
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. N.K. Ma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi457; 2000(56)DRJ674
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short, the Institute) alleging that A.P. Gupta, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had violated and contravened the provisions of Clause (11) of Part 1 of the First Schedule, Clause (1) of Part III of First Schedule and Clause (i) of part II of the Second Schedule to the Act, 2.2. Back ground facts are as under :Proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received that while holding a certificate of practice respondent was in full time employment with National Insurance Company Ltd. without obtaining permission of the Institute to be so engaged as required under Regulation 166 of the then Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter called the old Regulations) corresponding to Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (in short, the Regulations). It was alleged th...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]79ITD291(Delhi)
ORDERDiva Singh, J.M.1. to 11. (These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.)12. In ground No. 2(b), the challenge is posed by the assessed to maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,425 by the Commissioner (Appeals) on account of legal and professional charges paid to M/s. J.B. Dadachandji holding that it is not connected with the business of the company.13. We have heard the rival submissions. It is seen that the assessed paid an amount of Rs. 1,65,525 to M/s. Dadachandji & Co. solicitors in connection with registration of shares by non-resident companies of Mr. Swaraj Paul. The assessed was requested to indicate how this expenditure could be related to carrying on the business. In its letter dated 30-6-1986, the assessed stated that the company had to secure opinion on the circulars issued by the RBI in connection with the investment to be made by the non-residents, registration of shares in their names and in connection with the writ filed by the company in th...
Pal Properties (i) (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)292
ORDERR.S. Syal, AM:These two appeals by the assessed emanate from the combined order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21-5-1993, relevant to assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.2. Since both the appeals are based on common facts and identical grounds of appeal, we, thereforee, proceed to dispose of them by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The appeal for assessment year 1990-91 and the first ground for assessment year 1991-92 rotate around a single issue. Briefly stated, the facts of the case on the issue are: The assessed entered into lease agreement on 26-11-1979 with M/s. Arya Dharam Seva Sangh, for the lease of the 1st Floor premises, Flat No. H-72,'Connaught Circus, New Delhi, together with right of entrance passage and other easements of the said premises for 114 months at a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month. This lease deed was renewable at the desire of the tenant. The assessed entered into sublease vide lease deed dated 18-8-1981 with the Traders...
institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. B. L. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]113TAXMAN170(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J This is a reference under section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 Income Tax Act by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Institute'). Factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows :2. B.L. Khanna (the respondent') as a Chartered Accountant had certified an application by Aero Traders Private Limited in accordance with the requirements of Import and Export Policy certifying the FOB value of exports at Rs. 4,44,77,996 which was wrong. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports gave information to the Institute that figures certified by the respondent in the report were not correct. The respondent certified the FOB value of exports at Rs. 4,44,77,996 whereas the correct figure was Rs. 4,14,69,925. On getting information from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee. Said Committee concluded that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct withi...
Pal Properties (i)(P) Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]79ITD464(Delhi)
ORDERPer R.S. Syal, A.M.These two appeals by the assessed emanate from the combined order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21-5-1993 relevant to assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.2. Since both the appeals are based on common facts and identical grounds of appeal, we, thereforee, proceed to dispose of them by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. The appeal for assessment year 1990-91 and the first ground for assessment year 1991-92 rotate around a single issue. Briefly stated the facts of the case on the issue are : The assessed entered into lease agreement on 26-11-1979 with M/s. Arya Dharam Seva Sangh, for the lease of the 1st Floor, premises, Flat No. H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi together with right of entrance passage and other casements of the said premises for 114 months at a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month. This lease deed was renewable at the desire of the tenant. The assessed entered into sub-lease vide lease deed dated 18-8-1981 with the Tra...
Kota Oxygen Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT889TriDel
1. The facts in this case are that the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 30,621.60 on 12-12-1985 in pursuance of the order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Kota vide Order-in-Original dated 8-11-1985. They, further paid a sum of Rs. 56,306.22 + Rs. 2,000/- on 3-3-1992 as duty and penalty respectively consequent to the Order-in-original dated 11-9-1991 passed by the same Assistant Commissioner Division, Kota.2. The related proceedings finally settled in the CEGAT Final Order No.700/98-A, dated 4-5-1998 in which the demand of Rs. 30,621.60 was set aside. The second proceedings were settled by CEGAT Final Order No.3. In pursuance of the above Orders of CEGAT, the appellants filed refund claims of Rs. 30,621.60 on 3-6-1998 and another claim of Rs. 26,718.88 on 12-5-1998.4. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 20-7-1998 and 30-6-1998 in two cases calling upon them to show cause why the relevant claims made by them should not be rejected as time barred...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Baij Nath Ashrafi Lal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT794TriDel
1. The respondents in this appeal were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. They took Modvat credit of Rs. 1,22,225.20 on certain inputs on the strength of cash memos issued by the manufacturers of those goods namely the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) Ltd. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the cash memos did not indicate whether they were "duplicate copies for transporter" and on the further ground that the documents did not contain necessary information as prescribed under Notification No. 23/95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 30-5-1995. He, further, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 on the respondents. The appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.2. Carefully examined the impugned order and connected records. Heard both sides. Ld. SDR Shri M.D. Singh has reiterated the grounds of the appeal and has ...
Mark Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC110
1. In this COD application the prayer is for condonation of dealy caused in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Neither the appellant nor the Department has a case that the appeal filed before this Tribunal is barred by limitation. Therefore, this COD application as ill conceived. The attempt of the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant is to make out a case that appeal before the lower appellate authority was not barred by limitation as was held by that authority.In substantiating this argument a petition of this nature is unwarranted. The petition is dismissed.2. Learned Departmental Representative is directed to make available the records evidencing the delivery of order passed by the adjudicating authority on the assessee, the appellant herein.3. Learned DR may also get details regarding the action taken by the Department on receipt of original letter dated 3.5.99 stated to have been sent by the appellant praying for a copy of the adjudication order to the Deputy/Asstt....
Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT792TriDel
1. Shri R. Sudhinder, ld. Counsel arguing for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty submits that the applicant had taken credit of duty on the imported goods before installation in terms of Rule 57Q(3). He submits that there was no time restriction under Rule 57Q(3); that the provisions of taking credit only after installation was contained in Rule 57Q(7). He submits that since the applicants had taken credit under Rule 57Q(3), they were not governed by the provisions of Rule 57Q(7) and that since there was no provision of not taking credit before installation under Rule 570(3), the applicants had correctly taken the credit and therefore, there was no question of pre-deposit.Ld. Counsel also submitted that the applicant in this case has applied for declaration as sick unit of their unit and has gone to BIFR for the purpose. He submits that since the Company is a sick unit and had erroded its assets to the largest extent, it was not in a position to deposit any amount. Ld. Counsel ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »