Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
The Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-iii Vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT129
D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-E (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the following question, arising out of ITA No. 89/Del/82, for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the salary income having already been assessed in the hands of the assessed's wife Smt. Madhu Soni Under Section 64(1)(ii) could not again be assessed in the hands of the assessed?'2. Briefly stated, the background facts are that the respondent-assessed, an individual, owns 25.04% shares in M/s. Ashok Worsted Spinners (P) Ltd., in which his wife holds 2.42% shares. Similarly, the assessed holds 25% shares in the Sharmila SpinningMills (P) Ltd., in which his wife's shareholding was to the extent of 2.56%. The assessed received a salary of Rs. 13,200/- from each of the two companies. In his return of...
R. Shanti Lal and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT242; 2003(85)ECC300; 2003(152)ELT282(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The short question which arises for consideration in thisapplication is as regards the rate of duty payable by the petitioner.2. The petitioners are carrying on the business of sale and purchase of edible oils where for they import edible oils from foreign countries. The Petitioner imported RBD Palmolein where for bill of entry for home consumption was issued on 25th July 1981. In the said bill of entry, the rate of excise duty was shown as 42.6%. The ship carrying the said goods started form Singapore on 11th July 1981 and entered the Indian territory on 16th July 1981. The vessel reached Bombay on 25th July 1981 and the bill of entry, as noticed hereinbefore, was lodged.3. The petitioner, however, was charged with a duty of 125% which became applicable w.e.f. 26th July 1981. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:'(a) Declare that the aforesaid ordinance dated 26th July, 1981 (Annexure VI) is illegal and ultra virus of the Constitution and the same be qua...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. DIn Dayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC223; 102(2003)DLT712
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard.2. This order shall dispose of the above two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the applications under Section 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3. An interesting question has arisen in both these matters: 'What shall be the impact of repealed law on the question of limitation ((sic) by the Act 54 of 1994) in filing Motor Accident Claim Petitions?4. The relevant facts are that an accident took place on 31st March, 1998. Under the then existing law, in view of proviso 2 of Sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter called 'The Act' for short), the petition was to be filed within six months and it should be filed with an application for condensation of delay within six months thereafter as well but with the permission of the learned Tribunal. In the case in hand, the petition was filed on 17th March, 1990 nearly after two years. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 16...
Dy. Cit Vs. Vijay Mehta (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)180
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.In this appeal the revenue has raised the following ground :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,21,652 made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'2. The assessed-HUF consisted of five members as under :1. Vijay Mehta 2. Nanak Mehta3. Gautam Mehta4. Baby Radhika Mehta5. Mrs. Manju Mehta3. The assessing officer observed that the HUF through its three members, namely, Nanak Mehta, Gautam Mehta and Radhika Mehta in association with some employees had incorporated and were running eleven private limited companies and one limited company. These companies were also doing the business of export of garments as the assessed-HUF was also doing. These companies were profit earning company and had accumulated substantial reserve and surplus and had not declared any dividend since their incorporation in 1987. The details of...
ito Vs. Vinod Kumar Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN603(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench E, has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question, arising out of Income Tax Appeal No. 89 (Del) of 1982, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the salary income having already been assessed in the hands of the assessed's wife Smt. Madhu Soni under section 64(1)(ii) could not again be assessed in the hands of the assessed ?'2. Briefly stated, the background facts are that the respondent-assessed, an individual, owns 25.04 per cent shares in Ashok Worsted Spinners (P) Ltd., in which his wife holds 2.42 per cent shares. Similarly, the assessed holds 25 per cent shares in Sharmila Spg. Mills (P) Ltd., in which his wife's shareholding was to the extent of 2.56 per cent. The assessed received a salary of Rs. 13,200 from each of the two companies. In his...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT363TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of fabricated, galvanized steel structurals which are used in the construction of electricity distribution towers by various electricity Boards and NTPC. The manufacture is against specific orders. The appellants were paid certain advances ranging from 10% to 15% of the value of the orders.The adjudication proceedings were initiated alleging that the advances are liable to be treated as additional consideration (over and above contracted price) and amounts equal to notional interest on the advance amounts should be added to the contract price in order to arrive at the assessable value (normal price) of the goods manufactured and sold. The adjudicating authority accepted the assessee's submission that the deposit was not an additional consideration and it doesn't amount to any indirect flow of benefit from the buyer on account of notional interest on advances. It was noted by the adjudicating authority that the deposits were in accordance with the st...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. A.M. Khanwilkar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT290
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The matter in controversy dealing with the issue of the notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act. dealing with the same society in question now stands fully settled by the judgment in CR 1237/1997 MCD v. R.K. Jain decided on 27.7.2002 and CWP No. 5872/99 decided on 13.8.2002. Thus the same directions are liable to be issued in the present petition.2. Learned counsel for the respondent however, disputes the aforesaid position on the basis that the judgment in CR 1237/1997 was per incuriam being in conflict with certain statutory provisions as also contrary to an earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Justice K.S. Gupta v. MCD : 83(2000)DLT644 . Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. : 1988CriLJ1661 and Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Or...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)SLJ436(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act') is in question in this writ petition, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.01.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. NO. 2672 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the respondent herein was allowed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent at the relevant point of time was a Sub- Inspector. He was promoted as an Inspector on out of turn basis in terms of the said Rules. The said promotion was made on ad hoc basis wherein it was made clear that he would not have any claim for seniority. Within a few days, i.e., on 12.08.1994 a meeting of regular Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC') was held wherein also the respondent herein...
Encon Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC68
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Formaldehyde which is liable to duty under Chapter 2912 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The present appeal is directed against a duty demand of over Rs. 9 Lakhs and an imposition of penalty over Rs. 1 Lakh in respect of Formaldehyde B grade removed by the appellants from their factory at Faridabad during the period December 89 to June 1991. The duty demand has been made treating the Delhi sale price of the goods as the assessable value.After disallowing the appellant's contention that the sale price from Delhi Depot included freight and octroi, two elements meriting deduction while fixing the assessable value of the goods, the impugned order has taken the view that the appellant's claim regarding depot at Delhi is not factually correct and that proof regarding actual freight and octroi have not been made available. This on the ground that transport and delivery were in appellant's own tanker.2. During the hearing of the case today, learned Counsel ...
Suvidha Engineers (India) Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC83
2. Prima facie, the appellants have got a strong case being covered by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Batliboi & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur, 2002 (140) ELT 100 (T). Therefore, the stay applications of the appellants are allowed unconditionally.3. With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals on merits itself.4. The above-captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 5.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the duty and imposed penalties as detailed in the order itself.5. The appellants No. 1, M/s. Suvidha Engineers (India) Ltd., are the independent contractors for the manufacture, installation and commissioning of Heating Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Systems. They had carried out Ducting/Air-conditioning work at Hotel Metropolitan Nikko, but they did not discharge the Central Excise duty on such installation work. They were served with a show cause notice requiring them to pay the Central Exc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »