Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Cit Vs. Bharat Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN75(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.This appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 1-10-2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 388 (Delhi) of 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-9 1.2. Factual position, as highlighted by the appellant, is as follows:The assessed, a registered firm, derives income from purchase and sale of Copper Wire and Motor Stampings. It has two partners. One of the partners, namely, RK Gupta is based in Coimbatore and looks after the sales of the assessed-firm. The goods are purchased in Delhi, transported to Coimbatore and sold there.3. On 13-2-1990, search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act took place at the business and residential premises of the assessed and its partners both at Delhi and Coimbatore. According to the revenue, post-search enquiries revealed that some of the goods transported to Coimbat...

Bharat General Stores Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anot ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against order of District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, dated 8.3.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. T.C. 304/1998 entitled M/s. Bharat General Stores v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that the goods of the appellant lying at premises No. A-131, North Ghonda, Delhi, were damaged in a fire, which occurred on 8.12.1993 at the aforesaid premises. The said goods were duly insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under policy No. 040802/48/34/11/543/93 which was valid from 21.5.1993 to 20.5.1994. Though the loss/damage which had resulted on account of the aforesaid fire was calculated to the extent of Rs. 75,798.87 by the appellant, a claim to the extent of Rs. 50,0...

Cattle Remedies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT79TriDel

1. This order will dispose of the above captioned two appeals arising out of the common order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority. Appeal No. E/58/02-B has been filed by the assessee while the other appeal No. E/188/03-B has been filed by the Revenue.2. In appeal No. E/58, the assessee has challenged that part of the impugned order vide which the classification of the goods in question viz. BLOTINOX, CATORRHOEA, CATGALL, DRESSOL, DEWORMIN, MAGGACITE, PROLLAPSE-IN, CATCOUGH, CATONE, DUGDH-DAN and UTEROTONE had been held to be under sub-heading 3003.30 upto 22-7-96 and under 3003.39 w.e.f.23-7-96, of the CETA. The learned Counsel has contended that these goods cannot be classified under this sub-heading being not ayurvedic veterinary medicaments, but are classifiable only under Heading 23.02 as animal feed. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the findings of the adjudicating authority classifying these goods under subheadings 3003.30 and 300...

Satish Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)136; 107(2003)DLT681; 2004(73)DRJ377

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in the case FIR No. 216/2002, under Sections 323/302/34, IPC, P.S. Alipur.2. Prosecution allegations in brief are that on 21.6.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. Krishan Kumar, Ramesh and Mukesh, after working in their fields, were returning home on their tractor; they were stopped by petitioner, who was armed with Lathis, his brother Sudhir, who was armed with Jeli and Anil, they were assaulted for having damaged the boundary of their field. They received injuries and were removed to Hospital where Ramesh died. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that after investigation, challan has been filed; and petitioner himself remained admitted in the Hospital for more than two weeks on account of injuries suffered by him. Learned Counsel argued that another case vide FIR No. 217/2002 was registered against the complainant party and charge under Section 307, IPC has been framed against them; and both the matters ar...

Mcd Vs. Rajkumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)324; 108(2003)DLT195

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 10th July, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was published on 4th January, 2001 and the information relating thereto was received in the Office of the petitioner Corporation on 14th February, 2001. However, the writ petition was filed in this Court only on 18th February, 2002. There is no other Explanationn for the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. Mr. Monga has submitted that in matters relating to the movement of files in Government Department, files move at their own pace and such delay in the movement of the official files occur because they are required to go through several channels. Consequently the delay in filing the writ petition is not such which should disentitle the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In my view, institu...

O.P. Gaur Vs. O.P. Goel and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC239; 4(2003)CCR384; 107(2003)DLT747; 2004(72)DRJ26; 2003(3)JCC285

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 22th November, 2001 passed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent.2. By the impugned judgment the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held in favor of the appellant that indeed the respondent had a legal debt in the sum of Rs. 1,37,258 /- to pay to the appellant and in satisfaction of the said debt issued three cheques in the sum of Rs. 57,000/-, 40,000/- and 40,238/-. When presented for the encashment the cheques returned back dishonoured by the banker. It was also held in favor of the appellant that as per the requirement of law he had issued the statutory notice calling upon the respondent to tender the amount covered by the three cheques within fifteen days of receipt of notice failing which action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be initia...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Metal Re-rollers (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)349

D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, is directed against order, dt. 4 Oct., 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC-II, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 998/Del of 1998. By the impugned order the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on the respondent-assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of asst. yr 1993-94, on the ground that in the assessment order the AO has not recorded his satisfaction, as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c).While coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) .2. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue.3. Assailing the order passed by the Tribunal Mr. Khanna has submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessed was required to furnish the details of the searches conducted by the Central excise departm...

Sunair Hotels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)540

ORDER1. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of an order dt. 26th Sept., 2003, whereby the following directions issued by the CIT, Central-I, New Delhi, have been communicated to the petitioner :'While the assessed may not be required to pay any further amount for the present, in order to safeguard the interest of Revenue, the AO/TRO will be free to attach the immovable properties of the assessed by issue of notices under IRCP-I and ITCP-16. However, no further action would be taken by them in the matter till disposal of appeal by CIT(A). This order will be reviewed after 31st Dec., 2003 or after disposal of first appeal, whichever is earlier, or on change of material facts.' 2. In view of the afore-extracted order of the CIT staying further action in regard to the recovery of the remaining demands, we are of the view that no further orders are called for in this writ petition.3. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that if t...

Goyal Mg Gases Ltd. Vs. Prestige H.M. Poly Containers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]55SCL572(Delhi)

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this judgment I.A. 9362/2002 under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 read with Section 151, C.P.C. and LA. 9080/2003, under Section 151, C.P.C., for bringing on record additional documents, are being decided. The prayer in the application LA. 9362/2002 moved by defendant No. 2 is for vacation of the restraint order dated 16-12-1997, passed in LA. 11205/95, restraining defendants from selling, transferring or alienating the properties mentioned in Annexures A and B to the application. Defendant No. 2, guarantor of defendant No. 1, seeks vacation of the said order insofar as it restrains him from transferring or alienating the property mentioned in Annexure B i.e., A-7, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.2. The facts giving rise to the present application may be briefly noted. Plaintiff had filed the above suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs together with interest. Defendant filed the application for leave to contest, claiming that the...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Management Advisors and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)849

1. These cross appeals, one by the assessee and another by the Revenue, are preferred against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the asst.yr. 1991-92.2. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard simultaneously and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.4. Ground No. 1 in assessee's appeal and sole ground of the Revenue's appeal relate to the direction of the CIT(A) for allowing depreciation on soft drink bottles given on lease to M/s Coolade Beverages (P) Ltd. (hereinafter called M/s Coolade).5. The facts in nutshell on this issue borne out from the record are that in the year under consideration, assessee had purchased soft drink bottles from M/s Glass and Ceramics Decorators, Bombay, worth Rs. 19,54,953 by means of 30 invoices during the period w.e.f. 28th March, 1991 to 30th March, 1991. The bottles were to be ...