Delhi Court January 2004 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. Achal Investment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)475; 2004(73)DRJ462; [2004]268ITR203(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The Revenue's reference is to be heard for the assessment year 1982-83 against the assessed M/s Achal Investments Ltd. The reference is under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and the question framed is as under:'Whether the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had not been rightly invoked in this case?'2. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act after making necessary inquiries as contemplated. The company was incorporated on 14.7.1980 and the accounts were closed on 30.6.1981. The capital of the company consisting of 2,00,000 shares of Rs.10/- each amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-. The company received Rs.3,05,500/- as share application money. The Assessing Officer did not allow certain expenditure in view of the fact that there was no income of the company during the first year. It is also noted that certain confirmation letters in respect of the amounts i...
Harish Kumar and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT815; 2004(73)DRJ74
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal today.Heard learned senior counsel in support of the writ petition. Petitioners, ten in numbers, are owners of auto-rickshaws and had been earning their livelihood by plying the auto-rickshaws within the NCT of Delhi. 2. Petitioners' case is that pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 13029/1995 titled M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and other Orders passed by the Supreme Court in that regard, petitioners applied to the Transport Department-respondent No. 2 for the grant of Form No. P-3. Petitioners claim that No Objection Certificate in Form P-3 had been obtained after making payment of all pending challans and tax dues. No Objection Certificate in terms of the Scheme entitled the petitioners to the issuance of Form No. P-4. The procedure prescribed was that the vehicle was to be taken for purposes of scrapping to the designated scrapping unit. ...
Social Jurist Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 109(2003)DLT489; 2004(75)DRJ365
ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying as under:'27. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be please to : (a) direct the respondents to identify all such unaided recognized private schools in Delhi to whom the lands have allotted by public bodies at concessional rates/free of cost and to place on record of this Hon'ble Court list of all such schools with relevant particulars thereof; (b) direct the respondents to ensure that all unaided recognized private schools in Delhi to whom public lands have been allotted on concessional rates/free of cost should comply with the conditions of allotment of lands in regard to admission to the children of weaker sections of society to the extent of 25% and grant freeship to them; (c) direct the respondents to take action against the erring schools; (d) direct the respondents Delhi Government to frame rules/policy laying down provision for admission by all unaided recogn...
Rochi Ram and Sons Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC78
1. M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 34/2002 dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Shri C. Harishankar, learned Advocate, mentioned at the outset that the Appellants are not disputing the demand of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 5,379 confirmed against them in respect of 2000 leather straps imported by them in excess of the quantity shown in Bill of Entry No.168 filed by them. In view of this we uphold the demand of Customs duty Rs. 5379.3.1 The learned Counsel further mentioned that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confiscated watch movements imported by them under Bill so Entry Nos. 167 and 168 on the ground that the conditions of the Notification No. 1/64-Cus dated 18.1.64 were violated in as much though the goods were bearing the trade mark "ROCHEES" of the appellants, the name of the manufacturing country and the manufacturer's name were not mentioned thereon.3.2 The learned Adv...
Decent Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT181TriDel
2. The entire duty of Rs. 3,79,808/- had already been deposited by the appellants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, pre-deposit of the entire penalty of Rs. 20,000/- is waived, recovery stayed till the disposal of appeal.3. The learned Counsel has stated that issue involved is very short and the appeal itself can be disposed of.4. I have gone through the records and request of the Counsel is accepted.5. The appellants have been denied the benefit of SSI exemption for having used the brand name of another person on their goods 'Biscuits' during the period in dispute 19-4-2001 to 26-6-2001. They have deposited the duty on the clearances made by them during this period at full rate.6. The contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the appellants are entitled to avail Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs used by them in the manufacture of the goods on the clearances on which they have paid duly. On the other hand, the learned JDR, has reiterated the correctnes...
D.D. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC304
1. M/s. D.D Industries Ltd. have filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 666/2002 dated 18.12.2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of goods seized from them, demand of duty and penalty.2. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant, mentioned that the appellants manufacture Motor vehicle parts and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that the Central Excise Officers visited their unit on 4.12.93 and found that RG 1 register was written upto 30.11.93, finished goods valued at Rs. 80,234.22 were found in excess of the stock entered in RG I and the goods valued at Rs. 4,87,801 removed under GPI Nos. 838 to 845 from 1.12.93 to 3.12.93 was not recorded in RG I register. He submitted that production for 1.12.93 to 3.12.93 was recorded in production slips which were resumed by the Central Excise officers; that taking into account the production recorded in production slips and clearances made by them, there was neither any excess nor any shortag...
Cce Vs. Vinod Tools India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC558
1. None has come present for the respondents, No request for adjournment has also been received from them. The file shows that earlier the notice was sent to them for 25.10.2003 but they sent request for adjournment, which was allowed. Again notice was sent to them for 15.12.2003 but none appeared on their behalf. Still another notice was sent to them for today i.e. 19.1.2004, but again today none has come present. It appears that the respondents are, deliberately avoiding the appearance. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing learned JDR.2. The only issue involved in this appeal which has been preferred against the impugned order in appeal, by the Revenue, is as to whether the respondents are entitled to the rebate/refund of the duty paid goods exported by them. The adjudicating authority disallowed the refund by holding that the goods were not exported by the manufacturer and no nexus between the goods cleared by the manufacturer and the goods exported by the appell...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Agya Auto Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT177TriDel
1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. They have requested that matter may be decided on merits by taking into consideration their cross objections. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after going through the cross objections and hearing ld.JDR.2. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner by setting aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods, redemption fine imposed for getting those goods redeemed and converted the penalty under Rule 226 of the Rules from that of Rule 173Q.3. The facts borne out from the record are, that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of leaf spring. On physical verification of the goods lying in their factory by the Central Excise Officer, on 15-10-97, 367 Nos. of leaf spring valued at Rs. 73,400/- were found in excess over the balance recorded in the RG-I register. The goods we...
Mmtc Ltd. Core-1 Vs. Jt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Delhi)841
These are two appeals-arising out of the respective orders of the CIT(A) dated 4-2-1999 pertaining to assessment year 1991-92 and 1995-96. Since similar grounds of appeal are involved in these appeals, they are disposed off by this single consolidated order for convenience and brevity.2. ITA 1902/DeI/99 : Although in the memo of appeal, the appellant has preferred as many as four grounds of appeal but it was submitted at the time of hearing that only the following two grounds are being pressed for adjudication which shall be dealt with by us in seriatum: "1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in directing that the miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs. 321,82,000 did not form a part of the business income and not entitled to relief under section 80HHC for working out the deduction.2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that income earned on investment in Unit Trust of India amounting to Rs. 3,33,00,000 was the income from other sources as against the claim of the appellant of the same being in...
Smt. Neelam Sharma Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT807; 2004(73)DRJ276; (2004)137PLR31
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 submits that counter affidavit filed by respondent no.7 be also treated and read on behalf of respondents 8 and 9. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.1 has already been filed. 2. Rule.With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for disposal today.Petitioners numbering three happen to be the wives of officials posted at Delhi Fire Service Station, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Petitioners have sought directions to be issued to respondents 1-6 in terms of prayers A to H in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main prayer is that the land and the building be protected and not allowed to be partitioned by the respondents 1-6. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents 7-9 who have taken control of the temple be disassociated from the same as they are trespassers and not even the residents of the Geeta Colony Fire Station Complex. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that r...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »