Delhi Court November 2003 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.R. Fragrances Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)4; [2004]270ITR560(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'), is directed against order dt. 11th Dec., 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'The Tribunal') in cross-appeals, being ITA No. 5856/Del/1997 and ITA No. 6085/Del/1997, by the assessed as well as the Revenue in respect of the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. According to the appellant, the order of the Tribunal involves the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether order of the learned Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,800,897 is perverse and contrary to the evidence and tax audit report of the statutory auditors?2. Whether the learned Tribunal ignored the reasoning of this AO and the tax audit report which does not mention any shortage of Supari and Catechu and was right in drawing distinction between shortage and wastage to delete the addition made by the assessed?3. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to amend and modify the questions of law sugg...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.S. Sibal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)291; 2004(73)DRJ203; [2004]269ITR429(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against order dated 30 January 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 114/Del/1998, pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:During the course of assessment proceedings for the afore-mentioned assessment year, the Assessing Officer noticed two deposits of Rs. 7 lacs and Rs. 2.25 lacs on 8 July 1993 and 12 August 1993 respectively in assessed's bank account. The assessed was required to explain the sources of the said two amounts. It was stated by the assessed that these amounts were received by way of gifts from two NRIs, namely, Sh.Subhash Kumar That and Mrs. Manjeet Kaur Ahluwalia. In support, copies of the gift deeds, affidavits of the donors, extracts from their bank accounts and bank certificate w...
Yudhvir Singh Ahluwalia and anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ666
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Appellant No. 1, Yudhvir Singh Ahluwalia and Nitya Ahluwalia are the husband and daughter respectively of late Geeta Ahluwalia.2. On 24.4.1987, late Geeta Ahluwalia was waiting for a bus at Jantar Mantar when she was hit by bus No. DEP 2512, driven by respondent No. 2. The bus was owned by respondent No. 1. As a result of the injuries sustained, she died.3. The appellants filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,40,000 on account of death of Geeta Ahluwalia.4. By an award dated 17.12.1991, it was held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 2. Compensation was assessed in the sum of Rs. 2,30,472. Same was held to be payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of realisation. Compensation was apportioned as under:(a) Appellant No. 1 : Rs. 1,00,000 (b) Appellant No. 2 : Rs. 1,30,472 5...
Cit Vs. R.S. Sibal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN492(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.This appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 30-1-2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in IT Appeal No. 11 4/Delhi/1998, pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :During the course of assessment proceedings for the aforementioned assessment year, the assessing officer noticed two deposits of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 2.25 lakhs on 8-7-1993 and 12-8-1993 respectively in assessed's bank account. The assessed was required to explain the sources of the said two amounts. It was stated by the assessed that these amounts were received by way of gifts from two NRIs, namely, Shri Subhash Kumar Thati and Mrs. Manjeet Kaur Ahluwalia. In support, copies of the gift deeds, affidavits of the donors, extracts from their bank ac...
Rakesh Saini and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: I(2006)ACC603
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Roshni Devi, wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 died along with three others in a train accident occurred on 18.12.1995 at Azadpur Railway Station alleging that it was due to negligence of respondent Northern Railway. The appellant first approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi for compensation. However, the said claim was dismissed on the ground that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim and remedy for the appellants was to file civil proceedings. In these circumstances, appellants filed Civil Suit No. 626 of 2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 under tortious liability. This suit has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated 29.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. Present appeal is preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree.2. Version of the appellants as to the circumstances under which accident took place on 18.12.1995 is as fo...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Advance Steel Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC456
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 22/2002 dated 22.1.2002, by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty against M/s. Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on them.2. Sri D.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the show cause notice was issued to the respondents for availing the exemption under Notification No. 202/88-CE. dated 1.3.88 wrongly; that the Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 7/97 dated 18.9.1997 confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,26,235 and a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs. However, on Appeal, filed by the respondents, the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 590/99A dated 3.5.99 remanded the matter for read judication with the directions that the Modvat Credit should not be denied on the ground of non-filing of declaration and whether the benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, was admissible to them in the light of the Larger Be...
intelecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC768
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.2.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the challenge has been made to the imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act are not attracted to the case of the appellants at all. The stand of the Department regarding the violation of the conditions of Exemption Notification No. 3/89-Cus dated 9.1.89 under which the goods were imported by the appellants free of customs duty, is contradictory as in the show cause notice it has been alleged that the exemption under this Notification was not available to the appellants at the time of import of the goods and even the Commissioner in the impugned order has also so observed, whereas on the other hand, the Commissioner has imposed the penalty by holding that the appellants had committed violation of the terms ...
Cc Vs. Shri Ashutosh Dubey, Balaji
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC576
1. These are five appeals of the department against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 15.10.97. The appellant is represented by the DR. M/s.Balaji enterprises (respondent in Appeal No. C/613/2002) and shri Umesh Chand Gupta (in Appeal No. C/616/2002) were represented by Sr.Advocate, Shri M. Chandrasekharan. None of the respondents in the remaining appeals was present, nor represented despite notice.2. On the basis of intelligence, Customs Officers of Jodhpur raided the residential-cum-business premises of Shri D.R. Jain (respondent and two independent Panch Witnesses and recovered 21 FM (foreign marked) gold biscuits weighing 2449.944 gms., valued at Rs. 11,84,550/-, concealed under a bed-sheet along with two packets of cellophane tape and 'Laser' brand blades. Two other persons viz. Sh. Ashutosh Dudey (respondent in C/612/2002) and Sh. Uchab Pradhan were also present on the spot, and their personal search was also con...
Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC458
1. In this Appeal, M/s. Ambica Industries are challenging determination of annual production capacity of their unit manufacturing high re-rolled products under Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act and High Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.2. We heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, for the Appellants and Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The learned Advocate, submitted that hot re-rolled products were declared as notified goods under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act with effect from 1.9.97; that a declaration was filed by the Appellants on 1.9.97 giving parameters of their mill; that they have followed the same with a Certificate dated 4.9.97 of an Expert Technical Authority M/s. Rakesh Agarwal and Associates certifying various parameters of their mill; that the Commissioner under Order No.94/97 dated 29.9.97 determined their annual capacity at 6590.638 MT; that on Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal vide ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kothari Poches Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT201TriDel
2. There is a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. The only ground alleged in the COD is that on account of conflicting judgments of the Tribunal in the earlier cases on the issue involved in the appeal, regarding the levy of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on the imported goods of Nepalese origin, the appeal could not be filed within time.But this ground cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 45 days. Moreover on merits the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the matter by making reference to the Notification No. 18/Cus/2000, dated 1-3-2000 and Notification No.37/96-Cus., dated 23-7-96 under which the goods were exempted from Basic Customs Duty.3. The far and against views taken in the earlier cases by the Tribunal, about levy or non-levy of SAD, did not prevent the Deptt.from filing the appeal in the present case against the impunged order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had dropped the duty demand not by following any judgment of the Tribunal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »