Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 9 of about 205 results (0.020 seconds)Cit Vs. V.P. JaIn (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN509(Delhi)
ORDERBy the courtAt the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the partner is entitled to exemption under section 80L of the Income Tax Act in respect of interest earned by the firm on bank deposits, etc., held in its name ?'Although the revenue has failed to file the paper books as well as the annexures to the statement of the case but keeping in view the fact that the issue involved in the case is purely legal, we dispense with the filing of the paper book and proceed to dispose of the reference.Despite service, no one appears for the respondent-assessed. We have, accordingly, heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.2. The issue raised by the revenue in the reference is as to whether a partner is entitl...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Krishan Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN229(Delhi)
ORDERD.K.. Jain, J.At the instance of (the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that the value of perquisite in respect of accommodation be limited to the value fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount remuneration at the rate of 1 per cent of the net profit of Modipon Ltd. did not accrue to the assessed as the amount of remuneration was foregone even before the right to receive remuneration accrued ?'2. The reference pertains to the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mahendra Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN271(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of remuneration at the rate of 1 per cent of the net profit of the company known as Modipon Ltd. agreed to the assessed so as the addition of Rs. 22,081 to the total income of the assessed for assessment year 1979-80 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the perquisite value in respect of residential accommodation made available to the assessed be limited to the value fixed by the legal authority under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1971 and not under rule 3B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1979-80. Since answers to both the questions s...
Tag this Judgment!Omega Bright Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT104TriDel
2. I have heard both sides. Prima facie, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has affirmed the Order-in-Original is against the law. Therefore, the appeal is admitted.3. With the consent of both sides I have heard the arguments on merit also.4. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants availed Modvat credit of Rs. 38,661/- but the same was disallowed to them for having taken wrongly on the strength of invoices issued by a dealer, by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. But that order of the Deputy Commr.on challege by the appellants, was set aside and the matter was sent back for re-adjudication. The Deputy Commissioner again vide Order dated 28-6-96 disallowed Modvat credit and confirmed the demand. But in appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same. However, the amount of Rs. 38,661/- was debited by the appellants from their RG-23A Part II account. After acceptance of their appeal they filed an application for refund claim which the adjudicating a...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Sinar Mas Pulp and Paper (India)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)794
1. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against the consolidated order dated 1/2/96 of DCIT(A), Range-I, New Delhi pertaining to 1994-95 financial year. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DCIT(A) was not justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the payments made to M/s. Jaakko Poyry (Asia Pacific) Ltd. Singapore as "Business Profit" of the Foreign Company instead of "Fee for Technical Services" and therefore are into taxable in India since the payments are in the nature of "Fees for technical services" as defined in Article 12 of India-Singapore Double Taxation Agreement and is taxable in India @ 15% (17.65%) after grossing up)." 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India for the purpose of setting up a Greenfield coated paper and board mill in India based on captive pulp from Indonesia. The assessee intended to raise a loan in the international market and for that purpose, it was required that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Finlay Corporation Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)86ITD626(Delhi)
1. The appeal by the Department and the cross-objection by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The following grounds have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that no income accrued, arose or was received by the assessee with the meaning of Section 5(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred deleting an addition of Rs. 5.73 crores made under Section 68 or alternatively under Section 69 despite (1) finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) that assessee had failed to discharge onus of proof contained in Section 68 or 69. (2) finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) that it is baffling as to why the assessee is not willing to file direct evidence which is under his possession or control." The objection raised by the assessee in the cross-objection are as under : "1. CIT(A) erred in holding that the investments remaine...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Inshallah Begum Allias Noor Jahan Begum Vs. Mohd. Yunus, S/O Mohd ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)5; 102(2003)DLT838; 2003(66)DRJ661
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard.2. This petition is directed against order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowing an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC. 3. In this case, one Mohd. Ahmad was tenant under late Sh. Hazi Abdul Najib in respect of two rooms. He died as a contractual tenant in the year 1965. It is claimed by Mohd. Yunus for no other legal heir claimed any tenancy right in the premises in question Hazi Abdul Hamid, the landlord, also expired. Litigation started amongst his legal heirs. On 26th July, 1967 by a decree confirmed up to the High Court, the premises in question in occupation of Mohd. Yunus was allotted to the petitioner and constructive possession of the said portion was also given to the said petitioner. 4. She filed an eviction petition against respondent No. 1 Mohd. Yunus in the year 1989 under Section 14(i)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short 'the Act'). Respondent No. 1 delayed the matter by one way or the other. I...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Swar Ramji Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)165; 103(2003)DLT47; 2003(70)DRJ39; 2003(1)SLJ226(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR361
Vijender Jain, J. 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that initially the order dismissing the appellant from the service was passed by the respondents on 19.12.1990, respondents had sentenced the appellant to undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment. It was contended that after having sentenced the appellant to undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment, the penalty of dismissal from the service was not proportionate to the offence committed by the appellant. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has cited : 1990CriLJ2148a , S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India and : (2000)IILLJ648SC , Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham. Mr. Sinha has also contended that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., : 1988Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Brothers Poly Pack Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT941TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 10-1-2002 vide which Modvat credit of Rs. 2,43,563/- had been disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by affirming the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19-11-99.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic films and plastic printed pouches, etc. They were availing the facility of Modvat credit under Rule 57-A, but vide their letter dated 17-6-98, they informed their jurisdictional range officer that they would be opting out of the Modvat scheme and shall be availing the benefit of Notification 5/98 dated 2-6-98. The Modvat credit involved on the inputs lying in stock and consumed in the finished products in stock, as on 18-6-98 was worked out to be Rs. 2,43,563/- and this amount was debited by the appellants in their PLA and RG 23A Part II register. But later on, the appellants found that their major product was covered by s...
Tag this Judgment!Panacea Biotec Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT627TriDel
1. M/s. Panacea Biotec Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrived with the Adjudication Order No. 5/2002, dated 20-5-2002 passed by Commissioner of Customs demanding customs duty, imposing penalty and confiscating the goods imported by them.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that no Appellants manufacture P or P medicaments; that they also get the goods manufactured from other manufacturers of P or P medicaments on loan licence basis which is permitted under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and is prevalent on large scale in pharmaceutical industry; that they imported two consignments of bulk drugs for the manufacture of life saving drugs and availed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 23/98-Cus., dated 2-6-98 (Serial No. 46B); that the said Notification exempts duty if the imported goods are used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicaments specified in List 2 subject to the condition that they follow the procedure set out in ...
Tag this Judgment!