Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S Cebon India Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present application is for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of penalty of Rs.2 lakhs and for stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.On careful examination of the records of this case and on hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage and, therefore, I am allowing this application unconditionally. I take up the appeal for disposal.2. The appellants are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. They are a 100% EOU.Certain raw materials, which were allegedly found to be contaminated and unfit for use in the manufacture of their final products were being transported by the appellants for the purpose of destruction at some other site. While in such transit, the goods were intercepted by the local Sales Tax officials of Haryana State and follow-up action was taken by them under the Sales Tax law. Those proceedings ended up in favour of the party. Those proceedings ended up in favour of the party. That was in 1995. M...

M/S. B.L. Maheshwari and M/S Indust. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases as apparent on record, I allow these applications unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally.2. I have carefully examined the records of these appeals. The appellants in Appeal No, E/3265/2000-NB(S) where aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Cental Excise, dated 10.2.99 whereby certain quantities of their final products were confiscated with option for redemption of payment of fine; a demand of duty of Rs.1,27,329/- was confirmed against them; a penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act; and another penalty of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed them under Rule 1730 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant in Appeal No. E/3266/2000-NB(S), who was a Director of the company (appellant in the first appeal a foresaid), was also aggrieved by the same order which imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on him under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules. Both thes...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trading Engineers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR515(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 71,390 is allowable as sales tax liability in computing the assessed's income for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78.3. The factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows :The assessed, a registered partnership firm, derived income from several agencies and also earned income by providing technical know-how forinstallation of pumping plants. It followed the mercantile system of accounting and its accounting year ended on September 30, 1976. For the relevant assessment year, the assessed declared income of Rs. 5,75,596. Subsequently, a letter ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Glass Agency

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR345(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi (in short, the 'Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the failure of the Income-tax Officer to deduct borrowed money and liabilities from the gross value of the assets in the computation of capital for the purpose of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not a mistake apparent from the record in terms of Section 154 of the Act ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice. 3. Though the Tribunal Was justified in its conclusion that where there is a debatable point involved, Section 154 of the Act, would not be applicable, in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of L...

Satya Pal JaIn Vs. Khushi Ram Ram Kishan Seth and Company and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)231; 90(2001)DLT621

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. One Mr. Hira Lal was tenant in the premises. The premises was let of r commercial purpose with effect from 1st May, 1954. Mr. Hira Lal dies in October, 1971. BY an amendment made in the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of tenant in Section 2(1) was amended to mean:'any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or, ut for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes: (i) a sub-tenant;(ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy; and(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified respectively, in Explanationn I and Explanationn II to this clause, such of the aforesaid person's(a) spouse,(b) son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them,(c) parents,(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of this pre-deceased son, as had been ordinarily living in the p...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rama Body Builders

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)319; [2001]250ITR825(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D ('the Tribunal' in short), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that, after the payment on March 8, 1977, the requirement of Section 249(4) should be taken as having been fulfilled ?'2. As the controversy lies in a narrow compass, the factual position needs to be noted in brief :For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessed filed its return of income disclosing Rs. 25,900 as taxable income. On the said amount the tax payable worked out to Rs. 7,307. The assessed had paid advance tax of Rs. 4,395. The assessment was completed by determining the total income at Rs. 1,28,310. The assessed filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short 'the AAC'), on April 2, 1976. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did n...

Nirmala Vs. Bimla Bharti and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)117; 90(2001)DLT395

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the parties the matter has been heard finally.The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant which is pending before the Trial Court. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement in that suit. Defendants 1 to 3 who are the statutory authorities filed written statement. In the suit seniority of defendant No. 4 was challenged. No separate written statement was filed by this defendant. However, a statement was made in Court that this defendant will adopt the written statement filed by defendants 1 to 3 and he would not like to file a separate written statement. Subsequently, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by defendant No. 4. By way of the application defendant NO. 4 sought to take three legal objections in the written statement to the effect that suit was not within time, suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties inasmuch as defendant No. 4 was not a necessary party in the suit a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Gulati, Voluntary Liquidator, Oris ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)401; [2001]251ITR370(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN62(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the entire amount of Rs. 1 lakh representing minimum royalty payable to the Government of Orissa ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1975-76.3. The factual position as noted in the statement of case is as follows :4. The assessed-company was incorporated in the accounting year 1971-72, relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 as its previous year ended on August 31 of the relevant financial year. One Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited was the promoter of the company. The dominant object of incorporation was setting up of a paper mill in the district of Koraput in the State of Orissa for manufacture of 60,000 ton...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C. Lyall and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)398; [2001]252ITR398(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN65(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessment framed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1973-74.3. The background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows :The assessed had filed return of income disclosing nil income for the assessment year in question. In Part III of the return, a sum of Rs. 7,12,460 was claimed as exempt under Section 176(4) of the Act. It was stated that the partnership had been dissolved on January 24, 1968. The amount in question had been received by Charanjit Lal, proprietor of the concern, C. Lyall and Co. It was the assessed's stand tha...

State of Delhi Vs. Subhash Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)915; 96(2002)DLT212

Khan, (J) 1. This appeal is said to be delayed by 136 days and appellant had not even chosen to seek condensation. Confronted with this L/C for appellant sought to justify the delay by falling back upon provisions of Section 378 (5) Cr.P.C. which prescribed six months limitation period for filing acquittal appeal by a public servant complaintant in cases instituted upon a complaint. This provision, according to her, provided six months to appellant to file the present appeal which had also emanated from a complaint and was thus filed within time. 2. L/C for respondents, however, repelled this to claim that Acquittal Appeal of State was to be filed within 90 days from the date of acquittal order Under Article 114 of the Limitation Act. She sought support for this from Supreme Court judgment in 'State v. Dharampal : 2001CriLJ4748 '. 3. The relevant provision reads thus:-'378 (4) if such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an applic...