Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotz Hotel Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Del)257; [2003]260ITR132(Delhi)

D. K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order, dated October 31, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 5326/Delhi of 1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89. The following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law, have been proposed in the appeal memo : 'A. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that loss of Rs. 10,05,740 on account of sale of shares is a hedging loss and is not a speculative loss as held by the Assessing Officer B. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the transaction related to speculative loss as covered under Section 43 of the Act C. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in holding that Rs. 10,05,740 is a business loss, is perverse and has ignored the fact that actual delivery of the shares was not taken by the ass...

Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)228; 103(2003)DLT78; 2004(72)DRJ789; 2003(157)ELT9(Del)

D.K. Jain, J.1. The short question falling for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to remission of Customs duty paid on the goods imported by it, after an order for clearance for home consumption had been passed but the goods were destroyed in fire before these could actually be cleared from the bonded warehouse.2. To appreciate the rival submissions, a brief reference to the back ground facts would be necessary. These are :The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of beer. In August 1975, it imported through the State Trading Corporation, Ballots of Brewery Hops of Czechoslovakian origin. The said Brewery Hops, which are stated to be of extremely delicate and perishable nature, arrived at Bombay Port on 27 August 1975 and actually landed at the port for discharge on 1 September 1975. The customs examination took place on 10 September 1975 and on 17 September 1975 the goods were removed to the uncleared goods warehouse maintained by the B...

Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi146

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner M/s. Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. seek a writ of certiorari for quashing letter/order numbering l(4)/ 2000/D (S-II]/CPO(AMT)-1331, dated 6-8-2001, passed by the respondent as also quashing of all other consequential letters/ orders Issued by subordinate offices/agencies, departments, authorities under the Ministry of defense, pursuant to the above order dated 6-8-2001. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus for restoration of all the cancelled supply orders/contracts and to grant residual delivery period of with additional mobilization period of a weeks to the petitioner for fulfillment of the contractual obligations. A restraint is also sought on the respondents and its subordinate offices and organisation from awarding respective contracts already entered into with the petitioner, to any third party.2. By the Impugned order Annexure P2, Director, Department of defense Production and Supplies, cancelled supply order No. 1(4)/2000/I (S-II)/CPO(AM...

K.T.S. Tulsi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)666; 104(2003)DLT757; 2003(68)DRJ488

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Rule. 1. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2002 passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector assessing rateable value of the property in question bearing No. 501/23B, Sainik Farm Avenue, New Delhi. 3. The petitioner purchased the property in question in pursuance to the Sale Deed dated 15th November, 1999 consisting of the land and in a semi-finished structure which was subsequently completed by the petitioner. The consideration paid as per the Sale Deed is recorded Rs. 22 lakhs in pursuance to agreement to sell at 30th August, 1995. The petitioner submitted a valuation report showing additional expenditure of Rs. 5 lakhs on the completion of construction and the period of commencement of construction is stated to be January 1991 to July, 1992. 4. A reading of the order of assessment shows that the value of the land stated in the sale deed h...

K.P. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)535; 2003(70)DRJ582

D.K. Jain, J. 1. An Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) on 4 August 1999, dismissing the petitioner's original application (OA No. 825/94), against the award of punishment of dismissal from service is under challenge in this writ petition.2. In November 1980, the petitioner was appointed as an Auditor in the defense Accounts Department and was posted in the office of the Controller of defense Accounts (Funds), Meerut. He was transferred to New Delhi on 29 June 1992. Vide order dated 17 August 1992, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry and charge memo was issued to him on 26 June 1993 for his alleged acts of misbehavior, misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience, alleging that : (i) on 27 July 1992 he went to the Section in drunken state to produce the application for leave for his absence, enclosing the medical certificate and when one of the officers wanted to reconcile the discrepancy about his ailment sho...

Grey Iron Foundry Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT81TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the A.C. disallowing refund claim of Rs. 1,90,855.83 to the appellants.2. None on behalf of the appellants has come forward in spite of notice for today's hearing, to prosecute the appeal. However, I have gone through the record and heard JDR for deciding the appeal on merits.3. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant lodged refund claim of duty on the goods returned to the factory under Rule 173-L(ii). The same had been rejected by the authorities below on the ground of non-adherence to procedure, non-submission of original duty paying documents and non-production of certificates from the range officer regarding non-availment of Modvat credit by the buyers on the goods returned by them, to the appellants.4. The appellants have along with memo of appeal filed requisite documents in order to...

Philco Home Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(108)LC106Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In this case a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of duty on the ground that they are clearing the Aluminium Pressure Cooker under brand name of 'Philco, which belongs to M/s.Philco Metal Industries.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are not manufacturing similar goods. M/s. Philco Metal Industries are manufacturing Utensils, whereas appellants are manufacturing Pressure Cookers. The appellants replied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries, to submit that the benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption cannot be denied if the owner of the brand name is not manufacturing similar goods.4. The appellant also pleaded that now the appellant had applied for registration of brand name in their favour. The appellant also pleaded limitation on the ground that they filed necessary declar...

Cce Vs. Scientific Sales and Scientific

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC660

1. These are two appeals preferred by Revenue against the following two Orders-in-Appeal: 2.1 Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned SDR, submitted that the Additional Commissioner had disallowed Modvat credit of the duty in respect of damaged Cathode Ray Tubes as the same were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat Credit in terms of Rule 57D(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 observing that the tubes were found damaged during testing/checking which is a part of manufacturing process and credit is not deniable on inputs contained in any waste arising during the process of manufacture. The learned SDR, further, submitted that Credit of duty paid on inputs is available only when inputs are used in or in relation to manufacture of final products; that as the tubes were damaged and not fit for use before coming into the stream of manufacturing process, Modvat Credit is not available; that Rule 57D is not attracted...

Bholanath International Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(108)LC108Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bholanath International Ltd., is whether benefit of Notification No. 32/97-Cus dated 1.4.1997 is available to them in respect of goods imported.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported 1533 yards of fabrics and filed Bill of Entry dated 8.5.1998 claiming the exemption under Notification No. 32/97 which provides exemption from payment of duty subject to the condition that the goods are imported for execution of an export order placed on the importer by the supplier of goods for jobbing; that the said material was to be used for edging jute carpets to be procured locally and thereafter would be exported to the supplier; that the said fabric has been supplied free of cost by the supplier and the appellants would be receiving only conversion charges which also include the price of the basic fabric of jute carpet; that the edged jute carpet had been exported also; that the Asst. Commissioner, under Ad...

Srj Securities Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee being aggrieved by the order dated 19-10-2000 passed by the CIT(A) has invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal and challenged the same on the grounds detailed below :-- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the action of the authorities below in treating the business loss of Rs. 37,40,568 on delivery based purchase and sale transactions of shares as speculative is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal and must be quashed. 2. Further, the action of the authorities below in disallowing office expenses in a sum of Rs. 38,373 is arbitrary, improper and untenable must be quashed. 3. That the levy of interest is legally untenable and must be quashed." 2. To adjudicate the controversy involved in the present proceedings, we must at the threshold refer to certain relevant facts available on record.3. The facts as available on the record are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The appellant company claims to be the Member of th...