Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Janki Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT68TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Janki Processors Limited, the issue involved is whether the abatement of duty is available to them under Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants are independent processors processing man made fabrics; that they were assessed to Central Excise duty under Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors and Annual Capacity Rules, 2000; that they filed abatement claim for regularization of non-payment of duty for the period from 23-10-2000 to 1-2-2001; that the Commissioner allowed the abatement for the period from November, 2000 to January, 2001 and disallowed the abatement for the period from 24-10-2000 to 31-10-2000 on the ground that the month is to be taken as complete one calendar month and not a fraction of a month. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the period of one month is required to be reckoned from the date of closure and in case the closure period is one month or m...

Tedco Investment and Financial Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Diva Singh, JM - This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 1-2-2002 of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi pertaining to 1998-99 assessment year.2. The grounds raised by the assessee were argumentative in nature. As such, the assessee was directed to file abridged grounds which were filed on 10-11-2002. In view of the fact that ground No. 12 was neither raised before the CIT(A) nor was it filed before the Tribunal originally, the learned DR took strong objection to adding of this ground in the abridged grounds. The other grounds were not objected to by the learned DR. The grounds raised read as under : "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the appellant company cannot be considered as a non-banking financial company under Section 45-IA of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 when the matter of granting Registration is still pending with Reserve Bank of India, 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fa...

New Holland Tractors (India) (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)628

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 18th Nov., 2002, of CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to 1996-97 assessment year.2. The sole issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal pertains to the penalty imposed and upheld under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Various grounds have been raised by the assessee praying for the quashing of penalty imposed to the tune of rupees five crores fifty lakhs odd.2.1 The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company was incorporated on 9th May, 1995, and this is the first year of operation of the company. Its return was filed on 30th Nov., 1996, declaring a taxable income of Rs. 2,14,50,340 and assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on a total income of Rs. 14,10,55,490. The total income of the assessee comprised of the business income received as technical fee from Escorts Ltd., and income from other sources as interest income. In the year under consideration, the assessee entered in an agreement on 14...

Smt. Bimla and anr. Vs. Smt. Kalawati and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)136; 104(2003)DLT124; 2003(68)DRJ67

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a civil suit for partition and for separate possession of properties falling in the share of the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs are two daughters of late Shri Amir Singh, who is stated to have died interstate on 13th May, 1994. 3. There are five properties which are forming the subject matter of the claim for partition in the present suit. The details thereof are as under:-i 62, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusaf Sarai, New Delhi. ii 161-G, Gautam Nagar (Gujjar Dairy), New Delhi. iii 86, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusaf Sarai, New Delhi. iv 85, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusaf Sarai, New Delhi. v 79, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusaf Sarai, New Delhi.4. Out of the above, in relation to the properties at Seriall No. (i), (ii) & (iii) above, it is the admitted stand of all the parties during arguments that these properties were belonging to Shri Amir Singh. thereforee, the only question which arises in relation to these properties is whether there is any bar to the plaintiffs claiming partition and...

Goel Construction Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)143; 2003(2)ARBLR173(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT97; 2003(68)DRJ312; 2003(2)RAJ331

S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The relief claimed in the present arbitration application preferred under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is for directing the respondents to file the original arbitration agreement and to appoint an Arbitrator. The brief facts of the case are as under.2. The applicant is a contractor engaged in Works Contracts with various Government/Local bodies, in the name and style Goel Construction company having office D-1C/46-C, Janakpuri, Near Lajwanti chowck, New Delhi-58.3. Vide Agreement No. 1/EE/PaWD-IV/97-98, the applicant had entered into such a contract with the respondents through its Executive Engineer, Parliament Works Divn., IV CPWD, I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi (Respondent No. 3 herein) for the work 'Construction of M.P. Flat No. 165 and 166 at South Avenue, New Delhi'. The stipulated date of start was 21.4.97 and the stipulated date of completion of work by 20.10,97 with the tendered amount of Rs.9,46,004/-.4. It is contended by the appli...

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ4244; 104(2003)DLT913; 2003(69)DRJ242; [2003]264ITR703(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation, through its Secretary having its office at 05, Lawyers Chamber Supreme Court, New Delhi, has filed this petition, inter alia, praying to direct respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Chief Vigilance Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred as CBI) to register First Information Report (for short, FIR) in respect of offences mentioned in the petition, investigate and prosecute respondents 5 and 6 who are residents of Mumbai being a Commissioner of Income-tax and Executive Director of Security and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai, respectively under the provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has also prayed that respondents 1 and 2 should initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 5 and 6 for irregularities. Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission (though mistakenly shown as 'Chief Vigilance Commission') and CBI are joined as ...

Narinder Khanna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)420; [2003]264ITR91(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Petitioner, party in person has filed this petition against 14 respondents and after amendment the number has increased to 19. It is prayed by him that appropriate writ of the mandamus be issued to CBDT and CIT to collect income-tax in respect of taxable perquisites like road tax, free tyre tube, batteries, insurance premium, interest-free car loan of Rs. 4 lakhs, fixed conveyance allowance of Rs. 2,000 per month as well as reimbursement of 125 lts. of petrol per month from 5,000 class-I officers, 29,000 class-II officers and 40,000 class-III employees of Government-owned insurance companies for the block period of 10 years prior to search under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, conducted on 29th Nov., 2000.2. Some raids might have been conducted by the IT Department and it might have found out that benefits have been taken in contravention of the provisions of the IT Act. However, petitioner has not pointed out as to how he is entitled for issuance of writ of mandamu...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Late M.K. Swami Through L/H S.K. Santha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)457

D.K. Jain, J.1. The matter has been placed before the Court for appropriate orders as the Revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books, despite various opportunities. Since the issue raised in this reference is 150 longer rest Integra, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the question referred,2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E; New Delhi (for short the Tribunal), has referred under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that assets comprising of the balance with Canara Bank amounting to Rs. 3,72,552, shares with M/s Goetz (India) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 75,350, commission receivable amounting to Rs. 13,313 and dividend receivable amounting to Rs. 4,220 were to be assessed in the hands of the HUF of which the assessed was the 'Karta' and not in his assessment ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JaIn Tube Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)458

D.K. Jain, J. 1. The matter has been placed before us for appropriate orders as the Revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities. Since answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of this Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the reference at this stage itself.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000 by holding that allowable limit under Section 40A(5)(a) in case of employee directors was of Rs. 72,000 and head-wise limits in Section 40A(5)(c) did not apply ?'3. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenu...

Cwt Vs. M.K. Swami

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN72(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.The matter has been placed before the court for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books, despite various opportunities. Since the issue raised in this reference is no longer res integra, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the question referred.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that assets comprising of the balance with Canara Bank amounting to Rs. 3,72,552, shares with M/s. Goetz (India) Limited amounting to Rs. 75,350, commission receivable amounting to Rs. 13,313 and dividend receivable amounting to Rs. 4,220 were to be assessed in the hands of the HUF of which the assessed was the karta and ...