Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Ravi Kant Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)710; 91(2001)DLT764; 2001(59)DRJ741; [2001]250ITR141(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat.C.J. (Oral) 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Challenge in the appeal is to the conclusions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') arrived at in ITA (SS) No.70/Del/96 holding that provisions relating to block assessment in terms of Section 158BA are not applicable to the facts of the case.2. Factual scenario so far as relevant is as follows:Search and seizure operations were conducted on a business group known as Kohli Group on 1st, November, 1996. As it was noticed that assessed was having close links with the said group, a search under Section 132 of the Act was also conducted at the residential premises of the assessed on 30th November, 1996. assessed was found to be engaged in the business of property dealing, as his main source of income was found to be commission earned for making arrangements for hiring out or letting out properties and from purchase and sale of immovable pro...

Mrs. Rama Ghei Vs. U.P. State Handlom Corpn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)471; 91(2001)DLT386; 2001(59)DRJ58

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor. J. IA 1678/20001. Through this application under order 12 rule 6 CPC the plaintiff seeks a decree for possession in respect of the suit property in view of the admission as to relationship of landlord and tenant, rate of rent and termination of tenancy firstly by efflux of time and subsequently by way of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 2. Put briefly, the relevant facts are as under : i) The tenancy in respect of the suit property was created on 8.12.1976 by way of an unregistered lease deed for a period of ten years but it continued till 7.12.1995 as it was renewed from time to time by way of increasing the rent; ii) the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time on 7.12.1995 where after the plaintiff did not accept any rent or damages for use and occupation; iii) legal notice dated 12.12.1995 was served upon the defendant whereby the tenancy was terminated in terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as TP Act) a...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii, New Delhi Vs. M/S. La Medica, D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)931; 92(2001)DLT406; 2001(59)DRJ404; [2001]250ITR575(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to directions given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (in short the 'Tribunal') for opinion :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal had material to come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 3,82,750/- could not be treated as the assessed's income from undisclosed sources?Dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72.2. Factual position as noticed by the Tribunal is as follows. assessed was a manufacturer of allopathic medicines, the most famous being Equibron which was used as a tranquilliser. It claimed to have purchased raw-material worth Rs. 3,82,750/- from M/s Kalpana Enterprises, 71, Canning Street, Calcutta on credit. Two purchases, i.e., one for Rs. 1,83,750/- and the other for Rs. 2 lakhs were claimed to have been made. Income-tax Officer found that the rate at which...

M/S. Saraswati Real Estate Investment (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Yogi Pharm ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)807

ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The facts as disclosed in the plaint and supported by evidence by way of affidavit, run as follows. The plaintiff no. 1 company had advanced a sum of Rs. 25 lacs to defendant no. 1 by way of loan. This loan was to be repaid by the defendant no. 1 by 30th March, 1996 with interest. The defendant no. 1 issued various post dated cheques. However vide letters dated 27th March, 1996(Ex. P-1) and 19th March, 1996 (Ex. P-2) the defendant no. 1 requested plaintiff no. 1 not to present these cheques. Certain other cheques given by the defendant no. 1 when presented for payment were returned back due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff no. 1 has filed proceedings under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant no. 1 in respect of these cheques. These proceedings are pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The defendant no. 1 has n...

Cit Vs. Ravi Kant Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Del)566

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Challenge in the appeal is to the conclusions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') arrived at in ITA (SS) No. 70/Del/96 holding that provisions relating to block assessment in terms of section 158BA are not applicable to the facts of the case.2. Factual scenario so far as relevant is as follows :Search and seizure operations were conducted on a business group known as Kohli Group on 1-11-1996. As it was noticed that assessed was having close links with the said group, a search under section 132 of the Act was also conducted at the residential premises of the assessed on 30-11-1996. assessed was found to be engaged in the business of property dealing, as his main source of income was found to be commission earned for making arrangements for hiring out or letting out properties and from purchase and sale of imm...

Cit Vs. La Medica

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)314

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to directions given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Delhi Bench E (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal had material to come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 3,82,750 could not be treated as the assesses income from undisclosed sources ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72.2. Factual position as noticed by the Tribunal is as follows. assessed was a manufacturer of allopathic medicines, the most famous being Equibrom which was used as a tranquilliser. It claimed to have purchased raw material worth Rs. 3,82,750 from M/s Kalpana Enterprises, 71, canning street, Calcutta on credit. Two purchases, i.e., one for Rs. 1,83,750 and the other for Rs. 2 lakhs were claimed to have been made. The Income Tax Officer found t...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Auro Spg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 27.12.96 has denied the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 11,562.57 to the respondents availed by them on Industrial Cables.2. The respondents filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against the above Order of the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate authority vide his Order dated 28.1.2000 allowed their appeal with the observation that the Industrial Cables are essential part of Plant & Machinery and the manufacturing activity cannot be under-taken without it.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above Order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Swantantra Kumar, JDR for the appellants.The respondents are not represented. The Ld. JDR for the Revenue very fairly submitted that the nature and function of the Industrial Cables in the manufacturing activity undertaken by the respondents and the reasons for denying the modvat credit on them is not clear from the orders of both the...

M/S. J.K. Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants prays for withdrawal of the stay application as well as the appeal. The learned DR has no objection. In view of the request made, the stay application as well as the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

Shri Rajeev Mardia and M/S. Mardia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC221

1. Following question was referred to a larger Bench for consideration:-In Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Exercise [1992 (58) ELT 561], Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a classification list was filed by the manufacturer but as not approved for a long period. During the interregnum, how the payment of duty has to be dealt with, was considered by their Lordships. It was taken that the amount of duty paid was obviously provisional and subject to the result of the final approval by the authorities concerned. Their Lordship took the view that "clearance of the goods made by the appellant between the date of filing the classification lists and the date of approval by the Departmental authorities were in accordance with the procedure for provisional assessment. Consequently, it was observed that in such a situation, provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act apply, where a claim for refund of the excess amount o duty is made by the manufacturer. The o...

Cce, Chandigarh-ii Vs. M/S Birla Vxl Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are five appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal no. 750-751/CE/CHD/2000 dated 17.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The issue for consideration before the appellate authority was the admissibility of modvat credit under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules with regard to the machines called Two for One (TFO) Yarn Twisting Machine.Following the Tribunal's decision vide order No. A/1140-1141/99-NB (DB) dated 3.12.1999 with regard to the same respondents for another period, he allowed the appeals filed by the respondents, M/s Birla VXL Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. A request was made for adjournment. The matter was fixed for today on 22.2.2001 in the presence of the respondents; counsel. We do not find any justification for adjournment in this appeal. The request for adjournment is rejected.3. We have heard Shri S.K. Das, DR, and have gone through the facts on record. ...