Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Mohini Bhutani and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR799(Delhi)
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. These petitions are directed against the order of the learned A. C. M. M, dated October 16,1989, in Cases Nos. 1271-4/1, whereby the learned judge was pleased to frame charge under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against accused Nos. 1 and 2 while discharging accused No. 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act had been served upon the petitioners for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, yet the petitioners were covered by the 'amnesty scheme' under which returns were filed on March 31, 1987. He draws my attention to Instruction No. 1720, dated July 29, 1986, wherein it is stated that even though the notices under Section 139(2) or 148 of the Income-tax Act have been issued, yet the assessed would be entitled to the benefit of the 'amnesty scheme'. 3. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners points out the order dated June 28, 1995, of the Commissioner, w...
Mohini Bhutani Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN189(Delhi)
These petitions are directed against the order of the learned A.C.M.M. dated 16-10-1989 in case Nos. 1271-4/1, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to frame charge under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against accused Nos. 1 and 2 while discharging accused No. 3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though notice under section 148 of the Act had been served upon the petitioners for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86, yet the petitioners were covered by the 'Amnesty Scheme' under which returns were filed on 31-3-1987. He draws my attention to Instruction No. 1720, dated 29-7-1986 wherein it is stated that even though the notices under section 139(2) or 148 have been issued, yet the assessed would be entitled to the benefit of the 'Amnesty Scheme'.Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out order dated 28-6-1995 of the Commissioner, wherein the Commissioner has held that :'Even if a notice u...
Som Flavours Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT503TriDel
1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 30-4-97 in which it is alleged that on 31-10-96, the Anti-Evasion Officers of Central Excise Commissionerate, New Delhi intercepted one three wheeler auto loaded with 8 gunny bags containing polypacks of Talab brand gutka. The statement of Shri Deepak Gaur, driver of the auto was recorded. On physical verification of the, goods loaded in the three wheeler auto they found 8 gunny bags containing 3200 poly pouches of Talab brand Gutka valued at Rs. 48,640/- involving the Central Excise duty of Rs. 19,456/-. Since the goods were not accompanied by a document evidencing the payment of Central Excise duty, the same were seized along with the three wheeler auto. The licensed premises of the appellants were also searched and on conducting the physical verification of stock of the finished goods, there was found to be a shortage of 1760.700 kgs of gutka valued at Rs. 3,20,473/- involving the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,28,189/- The auth...
Citizen Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT175TriDel
1. After having examined the records and heard both sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally at this stage.Accordingly, I allow the present application and take up the appeal for disposal.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the Modvat credit of Rs. 4,985/- on Brass Gutka (input) to the appellants for the period July to September, 1996 and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Mod-vat credit has been denied on the ground that the inputs were not correctly declared under Rule 57G.3. Ld. Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand submits that the item was covered by the description "Copper & Brass sheets, strips and parts" given in the declaration filed by the appellants on 13-4-94. The lower appellate authority has wrongly rejected the appellant's plea that Brass Gutka was covered by the description "Brass parts" given in the said declaration dated 13-4-94. Ld. Counsel further su...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Magnum International Trading Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD113(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by department and Cross Objection by assessee relating to assessment year 1988-89. The department originally taken four grounds of appeal in its appeal, which are as under :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the rental income of Rs. 72,252 should be taken as income from business and not income from other sources. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the sum of Rs. 1,01,912 as interest free benefit from the value of the benefits. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no tax need be deducted on any payment chargeable under the head "Salary" even if it is paid outside India. The learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the only condition to be fulfilled is that the payment should be taxable under the head "Salaries" and it should be paid outside India. 4. On the facts and...
Kharaiti Lal and Sons Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi335; 97(2002)DLT303; 2002(62)DRJ314
Devinder Gupta, J.1. From a perusal of the impugned Order it is at once evident that the Learned Single Judge had devisedthe scheme of furnishing a copy of the questions proposed to be asked from the Defendant, with a view toconcluding his cross-examination with expedition.2. However salutary that objective may be, it appears to us to be legally unchartered, and destructive of the verypurpose of cross-examination. This purpose has been succinctly stated in Meer Sujad Ali v. Kashee Nath, 6WR 181, where it has been observed that 'a skillful interrogation may produce by art that which usuallyhappens accidentally'. In Sarkar on Evidence, Fifteenth Edition 1999 Volume 2, it is opined that -'cross-examination is directed to (1) the credibility of the witness; (2) the facts to which he had deposed inchief, including the cross-examiner's version thereof; and (3) the facts to which the witness has not deposedbut to which the cross-examiner thinks he is able to depose. The object of cross-examin...
Grafitek International Vs. K.K. Kaura and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)485; 96(2002)DLT385; 2002(62)DRJ72
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through this application leave to defend the suit for recovery filed under the summary procedure of Order 37 CPC has been sought on multifarious grounds.2. At the outset, Mr. I.C. kumar, learned counsel for the defendants has challenged the authority of Mr. Ravi K. Maggon who has filed the present suit as the power-of-attorney does not state that it was executed before a Notary Public nor does it bear any authentication by a Notary Public. It is pertinent to mention here that along with the suit a power of attorney was filed which was not notarised and a fresh power of attorney was filed on 29.7.2000 along with application for issuing summons for judgment.3. Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act postulates that the court shall presume that every document purporting to be power of attorney and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public or any court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice Consul or representative of the Central Government, was s...
Agarwal Breweries and Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT547TriDel
1. This application arises in an appeal filed by the applicants against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) affirming an order of the Joint Commissioner whereby a demand of duty of Rs. 8,23,1107- on a quantity of 1646.22 MTs. Khandsari molasses was confirmed against the applicants for the period March to June, 1997, a penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and another penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This application prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.3. The applicants are manufacturers of rectified spirit, which they manufacture out of molasses procured from various Khandsari and other sugar units. Khandsari molasses is chargeable to duty of excise @ Rs. 500 per MT w.e.f. 1-3-97 under the Finance Act, 1997 and the levy is on the procurer of the goods who is deemed to be the manuf...
Smithklime Beechem Consumer Vs. C.C.E., Bangalore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT180TriDel
1. This case has come up for rehearing after the application for Rectification of Mistake was allowed. In paras 11 and 12 the Tribunal in its Final Order No. A/1076/2000-NB (DB), dated 8-12-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 64 (Tri. - Del.)] had held as under : "Insofar as paying the refund in cash is concerned, we will have to examine the provisions of Rule 57E, We find that there is a provision in Rule 57E(2). Rule 57E(2) reads as, 'If a manufacturer of the final product has not taken any credit or has taken credit on any inputs and subsequently it so happens that any additional amount of duty is recovered by the manufacturer of such inputs or importer of such inputs in respect of such inputs, then manufacturer of the final product shall be allowed an additional amount equal to the amount of duly so recovered, if the manufacturer or importer of such inputs has passed on the incidence of the additional amount of duty to the manufacturer of final products." Thus we find that there is no provisi...
income-tax Officer Vs. Kuldeep Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)81ITD379(Delhi)
1. The grounds taken by the Department in this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 19-10-1994, for the assessment year 1993-94, read as under :- (1) The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that deduction under Section 80L is to be allowed in respect of income of each minor included in the total income of the assessee, over and above deduction under Section 80L to be allowed in the case of the assessee. (2) The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that Section 64(1 A) clearly states that all income arising or accruing to the minor child is to be included in the total income of the assessee; and Section 80B states that gross total income means total income, computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without making any deduction under chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act.2. Facts of the case, to be stated succinctly, are thus. The assessee, an individual, derived income from salary, house property and other sources. He ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »