Delhi Court December 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.
Chitra NaraIn Vs. Ndtv and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT394; 2004(28)PTC238(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The short question of law involved for determination in this petition preferred against the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the complaint of the petitioner Mrs. Chitra Narain who was once the Chief Producer of the All India Radio filed against respondents -- M/s. NDTV, Mr. Prannoy Roy, M/s. Star TV and Mr. Rupert Murdoch was dismissed without issuing the process is as under:'Whether the Magistrate while holding an enquiry into a complaint can permit a person against whom the complaint is filed to participate in the proceedings for the purpose of adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred.'2. The answer lies in the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 itself and is emphatic 'No' .3. In the instant case, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not only allowed the respondents to watch the proceedings but also allowed them to participate, file affid...
Mrs. Chitra NaraIn Vs. Ndtv,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2618
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The short question of law involved for determination in this petition preferred against the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the complaint of the petitioner Mrs.Chitra Narain who was once the Chief Producer of the All India Radio filed against respondents - M/s.NDTV, Mr.Prannoy Roy, M/s Star TV and Mr.Rupert Murdoch was dismissed without issuing the process is as under: -'Whether the magistrate while holding an enquiry into a complaint can permit a person against whom the complaint is filed to participate in the proceedings for the purpose of adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred.'2. The answer lies in the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 itself and is emphatic 'NO'. 3. In the instant case, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not only allowed the respondents to watch the proceedings but also allowed them to participate, file affidavit...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indocount Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)659
ORDER1. The issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, already stands concluded by a decision of this Court in CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 69 and, thereforee, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, survives for our consideration.2. It is however submitted by Mr. Jolly learned counsel for the Revenue, that in fact the penultimate paragraph of the said decision in fact supports the case of the Revenue inasmuch as the assessed. had not adduced any evidence to show that the leased out vehicles were used by the lessee in the business of running them on hire.3. We are unable to agree with learned counsel. We find that before the first appellate authority it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the assessed that there was no difference in the use of trucks by the assessed as owner on hire or in giving the trucks to some other party for using them 'in their business on hire'. The first appellate ...
Anand Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT317
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of a car bearing No. DL 4 CB 6473. Some time in the year 1993 the said car was involved in a crime and was impounded by the police. On the application of the petitioner the car was released on Superdarinama for Rs. 1,70,000/- on 4.5.1993 with the direction to produce the same as and when required in the Court. The petitioner was given a notice to produce the car on 27.2.2002 i.e. after 9 years when the matter came up for evidence. In response to the said notice the petitioner appeared and gave the undertaking to produce the same on 19.3.2002. Unfortunately the car was stolen and he lodged an FIR with the police. On 19.3.2002 notice under Section 446, Cr.P.C. was given calling upon the petitioner who was bound by 'Superdarinama' to produce the car to show cause why the penalty be not imposed and paid by him.2. Pursuant to the notice petitioner disclosed that the car has been stolen and FIR has been lodged in this regard. Acting on...
Cit Vs. Peter Dukes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN593(Delhi)
ORDER1. This appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against a consolidated order dated 3-8-2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-E (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITAs No. 1652, 1660,1663 & 1667/DeL/95, retaining to assessment year 1990-91. According to the revenue, the said order involves the following questions of law:1. Whether ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 79,378.00 on account of overtime being 15 per cent of salary, addition of Rs. 1,89,527.00 on account of overheads being 45 per cent of the salary and Rs. 28,704.00 on account of perquisites by the assessing officer.2. Whether ITAT was correct in confirming the order of CIT (A) and thereby deleting the addition of tax perquisite whereas under the provisions of section 17(2)(iv) the taxes paid by the employer are to be treated as perquisite?3. Whether ITAT was correct in confirming the...
Mohan MeakIn Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]89ITD179(Delhi)
ORDERPer Sikander Khan, AM.We have perused the miscellaneous application along with the Tribunal's order dated 31-1-2001 in the appeal and other relevant materials on the file. We have also heard the Ld. ARs of both the sides.2. The learned authorised representative of the assessed submitted that he would press only the points raised in paras 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the miscellaneous application. Other paras were not pressed.3. In the above paras it is contended that there are mistakes apparent from record in the Tribunal's order relating to the provision of Rs. 4,75,458 for leave encashment of permanent employees debited in the Profit & Loss account (vide para 2 of the Tribunal's order), expenditure on advertisement, publicity, running and maintenance of motor car under section 37(3A) (vide para 14 of the Tribunal's order), excess collection of sales tax (vide paras 19 to 22 of the Tribunal's order), claim of excise duty (vide paras 23 to 26 of the Tribunal's order) and expenditur...
Pyarelal Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT90TriDel
2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of parts of PD Pumps during the material period (7-3-93 to 31-8-93). During that period, they cleared the goods without payment of Central Excise duty, claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 54/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93. The department contested this claim of exemption and, by show cause notice, asked the party to pay the duty on the goods cleared during the said period. The party contested the demand and eventually, the dispute came up before this Tribunal. This Tribunal by Final Order Nos. 1138-1139/2000-B, dated 17-7-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 774] upheld the above demand of duty but directed the department that Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the PD Pump parts be allowed to the assessee, if otherwise admissible, the assessee had pre-deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for the purpose of their appeal being heard by the Tribunal. After the...
Prashant Glass Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC585
1. This is an application filed by the appellant in Appeal No.C/345/2000-A, which was allowed by this Tribunal by Final order dated 3-9-2001. By order dated 21-9-2000 the Tribunal granted stay of recovery of the amount demanded against the appellant on condition that an amount of Rs. 50,000 was deposited. The appellant complied with the above order depositing Rs. 50,000 on 16-10-2000. Thereafter during the hearing of the appeal the Tribunal passed a further interim order on 11-5-2001 under which as an interim direction was given to release the goods on payment of duty as declared by the appellant on the basis of provisional assessment. For the remaining amount the appellant was to give a Bond to the customs authorities. Provisional clearance should be allowed to the appellant without insisting on payment regarding redemption fine and penalty.2. Even though the appellant approached the customs authorities with copy of the order dated 11-5-2001 for getting the goods assessed to duty for...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. C.M. Re-rollers and Fabricators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT506TriDel
2.1 These are Department's appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the basis of directions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has partly confirmed the duty demand raised against the respondents and consequentially imposed penalties on the respondents.However, the Commissioner has dropped the demand in respect of certain allegations levelled in the show cause notice. The Department's appeals are basically directed against that portion of the order, which relates to the dropping of the demand and pray for confirmation of the demand for the amounts, which have been dropped and also pray for consequential imposition of higher penalty on the respondents than what has been imposed in the impugned order.2.2 In the show cause notice issued to the respondent-manufacturer viz.M/s. C.M. Re-Rollers and Fabricators (Respondent No. 1) and other respondents, it was alleged that they have indulged in...
United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC363
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of pesticides. For use in that, they import Phosphorus as input. The additional duty of customs (countervailing duty) levied on the input is available as Modvat credit to the appellant. From the imported Modvated phosphorus, the appellant sold some quantity between October 1996 to May 1997. While making those sales, the appellant paid Central Excise Duty on the phosphorus, instead of reversing the Modvat credit taken. Subsequently, on 4.8.98, pursuant to a direction by the jurisdiction Superintendent, the appellant reversed the credit taken in respect of the should phosphorus (Rs. 20,31,048). Thus, in respect of the same goods, payment of central excise duty as well as reversal of credit took place. The appellants letter dated 4th August 1998 on the subject to the Superintendent mentioned that the reversal of credit was under protest. The authorities took no action to restore the credit. Thereupon the appellant filed a refund application on 11.8.2000...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »