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. Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)485; [2004]269ITR561(Delhi)
1. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal has seriously erred in observing : In the case of CIT v. Nikko Auto Ltd. , that acceptance of payment by account payee cheque or account payee draft would be hazardous and cumbersome procedure and, thereforee, the case of the assessed was fully covered by the exceptions provided under Section 40A(3) r/w r. 6DD(j) and the Board's circular.2. We may note that we are not of the view that obtaining a cheque or a bank draft is hazardous and cumbersome procedure. Suffice it to say that in the present case, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the payee insisted for cash payment as observed by the learned CIT(A) and further that the transactions were found to be genuine. We may also note that in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO : [1991]191ITR667(SC) ; it is pointed out that terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not ta...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mgf India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)511; [2005]272ITR191(Delhi)
1. Mainly three questions have been raised with regard to the claim of higher rate of depreciation on the vehicles given on lease, the taxability of interest of Rs. 72,19,086 on Zero Coupon Bonds as it was shown in the books of accounts of the assessed and the question whether retrenchment compensation paid to workmen would be admissible for the benefits under the IT Act as business expenditure when there was a closure of one type of business of the assessed.2. As regards the 3rd question, the assessed was maintaining common books of accounts and funds were common for running different businesses. We were taken through the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Ptithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1967]63ITR632(SC) and Standard Refinery and Distillery Ltd. v. CIT : [1971]79ITR9(SC) and Standard Refinery & Distillery Ltd. v. CIT : [1971]79ITR589(SC) and in view of the apex Court judgment, it would not be possible to say that the Tribunal has committed any error insofar as the al...
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)558; [2005]272ITR379(Delhi)
1. An interesting question is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the issue of claiming benefits under Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Under Rule 17 of the IT Rules, 1962, a person is required to file Form No. 10 giving specific details for accumulation. The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) contends that mere listing of the manifold objects of the trusts would not suffice. Each purpose of accumulation and the amount set apart thereforee must be specified before the benefit under Section 11 could be claimed.2. In the instant case, however, we find that the Tribunal gave great importance to the following factual aspects as indicated in para 34 of its order:'34. A reading of the aforesaid reveals the following : (i) The assessed had been allowed the benefit of Section 11 in other assessment years though the purposes mentioned in Form No. 10 were the same as during the year under consideration.(ii)The accumul...
M.S. Aggarwal Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Del)692
ORDERT.N. Chopra, A.M.This appeal is filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2-1-2003 whereby block assessment made by the assessing officer under section 158BC has been upheld.2. The block period involved in the present assessment is 1-4-1989 to 15-1-2000. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessed are as under :'1. That, under the facts and the circumstances of the case, Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the order of the assessing officer.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has acted against the law by not considering all the grounds of appeal taken by the assessed. thereforee, the order is liable to be cancelled.3. That the search and seizure under section 132 is illegal, void ab initio and was without compliance of the various provisions stipulated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. That the principles of natural justice were violated while conducting the search, recording the statement under section 131 in pos...
Kavi @ StalIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1652; 2004(72)DRJ524
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this common Order I shall dispose of both the Criminal Appeals together. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.511/99 the Appellant was charged under Section 307/34 IPC and FIR No.114/1998 was registered. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default a further period of three months rigorous imprisonment. In Criminal Appeal No.514/1999 the Appellant was charged under Section 394/34, 307/34, 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and FIR No.169/1998 was registered. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default a further period of three months rigorous imprisonment. 3. On appeal before this Court, the matter was remanded to the Sessions Judge to determine the age of the Appellant. The Sessions Judge in his report dated 24.1.2000 has recorded the following conclusions and findings:- ''In view of the evidence discussed above, the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.K. Spintex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT170TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) held that principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in respect of the refund claim of the respondents.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of MM. Fabric with the aid of hot air stenter. The annual capacity of production of hot air stenter was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The respondents filed a declaration for determination of their annual capacity of their stenter without including the length of galleries.The annual capacity of the stenter was revised by the Commissioner of Central Excise taking into consideration the length of galleries. The respondents paid differential duty under protest and challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise fixing capacity of the stenter including length of galleries. The Tribunal set aside the order and held that the annual capacity ...
Cce Vs. Kurt-o-john Shoe Components
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC387
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are a 100% Export oriented unit. On 24.1.98, the officers of Central Excise Department visited the factory of the respondents and during the verification, it was found certain finished goods were found in excess to the statutory records. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that the goods found in excess of the balance shown in the RG-1 record liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty on the respondents. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods and also ordered that the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,16,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- was also imposed on the respondents. The respondents filed the appeal and the same was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The contention of the Revenue is that though a 100% EOU is not required to maintain R...
Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT185TriDel
1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the refund of the duty to the appellants as claimed by them.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since duty was paid twice on the goods i.e. once when these goods were cleared initially and second time, when on receipt of the goods back from the buyer were again cleared after repairing, reconditioning. Therefore, appellants are entitled to the refund of duty under Rule 173L.5. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants vide Invoices Nos. 211, 212, dated 13-2-96 and No. 213, dated 14-2-96 despatched HDPE unlaminated Bags (2000 Nos.) to M/s. Sooshri Plastics Industries Pvt.Ltd. But the delivery of these goods were not taken by the said company, the consignee, for having been not made within stipulated period. The plea of the appellants that these very goods were again cleared by them through invoice No. 58, dated 20-6-96, and as such, are entitled to the ref...
A.K. Spintex Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT386TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) held that principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in respect of the refund claim of the respondents.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of M.M. Fabric with the aid of hot air stenter. The annual capacity of production of hot air stenter was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The respondents filed a declaration for determination of their annual capacity of their stenter without including the length of galleries.The annual capacity Excise taking into consideration the length of galleries. The respondents paid differential duty under protest and challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise fixing capacity of the stenter including length of galleries. The Tribunal set aside the order and held that the annual capacity of the stenter is to be fixed without considering the len...
Sigma Corporation (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT168TriDel
1. The appellants are exporter of Auto Parts Under DEPB Scheme. They had exported certain consignments of Auto Parts during September, 1997 to September, 2002. The stuffing of goods in containers for the export was done in their factory itself under supervision of Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over the factory. Section 36 of the Customs Act read with Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulation, 1998 laid down inter alia that where export-related works such as stuffing, loading, etc., were undertaken under the supervision of Customs Officer beyond the customs area or beyond normal working hours of Customs, the prescribed fee (Merchant Over Time changes) shall be paid for the supervision rendered by the Customs Officer in respect of such works. In respect of the stuffing work done by the appellants in their factory under the supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Officer, the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise issued a letter directi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »