Delhi Court August 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.
Students Islamic Movement of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT583
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. From a perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition, it is seen that petitioner is seeking certified copies of the entire record, proceedings, order sheets, affidavits, exhibits, documents etc. including the evidence before the Tribunal.2. Mr. K.K. Sud, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that such a request is motivated with a view to find an Explanationn for the delay in challenging the order of the Tribunal in the Apex Court.3. Be that as it may, in my view, the petitioner, who has been fully participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal can make a bona fide request for documents or records or copies of evidence, which it does not possess or which it requires. A request for certified copies of the entire record, including the documents and pleadings as filed by the petitioner himself does appear to be unnecessary and superfluous.4. Mr. Manish Goel, at this stage, states that certified copy of the final order has not been supplied to the ...
Ram Singh Vs. P.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT124; (2003)ILLJ486Del
Vijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, has filed this writ petition. The Industrial Tribunal in view of the award dated 25.1.1990 on a reference from the appropriate Government held that the term of reference was capable of only a negative answer. It was further held that the Industrial Tribunal could not create a new term of reference and is bound to limit the adjudication to the term of reference. It was held in the award that in view of provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the decision of the Labour Commissioner in terms of the said Act and pursuant to the authority of Supreme Court in Canon India Ltd 1974 Lic 707, shall be final and in view of : (1971)IILLJ567SC , reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be made in respect of contract labour after enforcement of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.2. Unfortunately, workmen did not challenge the award but choo...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Del)361; [2002]258ITR365(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the said Act')'-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed was entitled to the deletion of addition of Rs. 3,67,619/- out of its interest claim.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,48,500/- to the assessed in respect of payments made to field organizers after the abolition of the sole selling agency.'RE.: QUESTION NO. 1:-FACTS:-2.1 The assessed is a public limited company. It filed a return of its income declaring the total taxable income for the assessment year 1977-78 at Rs. 3,53,28,960/- while claiming various deductions under Chap...
Cit Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN707(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', in terms of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed was entitled to the deletion of addition of Rs. 3,67,619 out of its interest claim ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,48,500 to the assessed in respect of payments made to field organizers after the abolition of the sole-selling agency ?'Re. : Question No. 1 :Facts2.1 The assessed is a public limited company. It filed a return of its income declaring the total taxable income for the assessment year 1977-78 at Rs. 3,53,28,960 while claiming various deductions under Chapter VI-A.2.2 The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of expenditur...
Cit Vs. Brig. Kapil Mohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN745(Delhi)
ORDERThis appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed against the order dated 25-4-2001, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi, in IT Appeal No. 5861 (Delhi) of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94, proposes the following questions, stated to be one of law :'1. Whether, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the dividend income from 63,676 shares from Mohan Meakins Ltd. cannot be included in the income of the assessed in view of section 64(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that dividend income of 63,676 shares of Mohan Meakins Ltd. cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessed as he is a sole male member and coparcener in the alleged smaller HUF consisting of the assessed, his wife and minor daughter?3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that dividend income from 60,000 shares of M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. is income of a trust created by the assessed in favor of the first son of Sh. Rakesh Mohan who ...
Shri Ram Refrigeration India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Surtax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN446(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.This reference under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, New Delhi, to this court for its opinion on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 4,55,000 being the cost of shares from which the assessed did not derive any income during the relevant accounting period was to be excluded for determining the assessed's capital for purposes of surtax under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The factual matrix leading to the aforementioned dispute is as follows :The assessed held shares in certain companies worth Rs. 4,55,000. During the assessment year 1982-83, the assessed did not derive, any dividend income there from. The cost of the said shares was excluded by the assessing officer as als...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pratap Singh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC224Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned three appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 14-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. Appeal Nos. E/1936 & 1937/01-NB have been preferred by the Revenue against part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the duty, penalty and interest against the company M/s. Kamachi Granites (P) Ltd. (referred to as assessee-company), while appeal No. E/1570/01-NB has been filed by the assessee-company, for questioning the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, through Order-in-Original, dated 12-10-2000, by the Joint Commissioner against them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The assessee-company is a 100% EOU. The company is engaged in the manufacture of polished granite slabs and tiles. During the course of physical stock verification by the officers of...
Cce Vs. Pratap Singh and Kamachi Granites
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC789
1. The above captioned three appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 14.6.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. Appeals Nos. E/1936 & 1937/2001-NB have been preferred by the Revenue against part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the duty, penalty and interest against the company M/s. Kamachi Granites (P) Ltd. (referred to as assessee company), which appeal No. E/1570/01-NB has been filed by the assessee company for questioning the correctnss of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, through Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2000, by the Joint Commissioner against them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The assessee company is a 100% EOU. The company is engaged in the manufacture of polished granite slabs and tiles. During the course of physical stock verification by the officers of t...
Fujitsu Indi Telecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT354TriDel
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 79 and 80 both dt. 27-2-2002 by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh setting aside the Order-in-Original on appeal by the Department. The appellants have manufactured and supplied Digital Telephone Switching System to DOT which is used as the main equipment in telephone exchanges. They have also supplied bought out items for installation of complete telephone exchanges. Initially the Dy.Commissioner having jurisdiction over the manufacturing unit of the appellants had finalised the assessment charging duty only on the switching system manufactured by the appellants. He did not include the value of the bought out items supplied separately to the DOT. The contention of the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals) to include the value of the bought out components was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the Order-in-Original.2. We have heard ld. Authorised Representative for the appell...
Shree Ram Wire Industries Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT593TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that bright bars, manufactured by the appellants, are classifiable under heading 7215.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, and are liable to excise duty.3. The contention of the appellants is that the conversion of round bars into bright bars does not amount to manufacture. Appellants relied upon the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vee Kayan Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.). The contention of the appellants is also that in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.4. The contention of the revenue is that heading 7214 of Central Excise Tariff covers other bars and rods or non-alloys steel, which are not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, not drawn but including those twisted after rolling. Heading 7215 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »