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. Minar Leasing (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)12
1. Learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to (2003) 263 ITR 3. It is not disputed before us that the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Bansal Credit Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 which has been referred by the Tribunal has been indirectly confirmed by the Supreme Court.2. In view of this, we do not entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goodwill India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)11; [2004]268ITR480(Delhi)
1. CMP 215/2003Allowed subject to all just exceptions.ITA No. 492/20032. Learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to (2003) 263 ITR 3. It is not disputed before us that the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd (2003) 259 ITR 69 , which has been referred by the Tribunal, has been indirectly confirmed by the Supreme Court.3. This appeal pertains to asst. yr. 1995-96. The question is with regard to allowance of depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent on leased vehicles. The question is no more rest integra in view of the decision of this Court reported in CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (supra) special leave petition against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as aforesaid. The assessed was party to those proceedings also.4. In view of this, we do not entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Kanta Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)480; [2004]270ITR442(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the CIT(A) under Section 269H of, the IT Act, 1961, against the order made by Tribunal passed in Income-tax Acquisition Appeal No. 6 of 1986. LAC, Acquisition Range LI, New Delhi, directed acquisition of property, namely, 7, Court Road, Delhi. Acquisition Appeal No. 7 of 1985 was preferred by group of purchasers of the said property.2. The property is known as No. 7, Court Road, Delhi. Details of transactions are given in para 3 of the order made by the Tribunal, It was an agreement to sell between the parties, which was executed on 12th Feb., 1975 by which the said property was agreed to be transferred for a consideration of Rs. 15,03,500. Sale deed was executed on 1st Nov., 1975, and was presented for registration on 14th Nov., 1978 before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. However, the same was registered on 15th Dec., 1978. On receipt of information under Section 269B of the IT Act, an inspector was deputed to enquire and compute the fair market va...
Joint Cit Vs. Peter Salwiezek
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)63
ORDERB.R. Jain A.M.:This appeal by the revenue arises from the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi, dated 17-12-1998, raises the following two grounds :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing exemption under section 10(5B) to the assessed ignoring all the material facts and evidence on record.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 75,000 as a perquisite under section 17(l)(iv) of the Act. '2. In ground No. 1, the learned Departmental Representative states that the assessing officer found that the assessed was employed with M/s G.E. Plastics Europe B.V. (hereinafter referred to as GEPE). His services were assigned to the joint venture company, namely M/s G.E. Plastics India Ltd. The taxes on his behalf have however been paid by the Indian company. The assessed, however, claimed exemption of the income which has...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.N. Katyal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: (2006)2STR77
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the penalty imposed under Section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- in all.3. The contention of the Revenue is that under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 a penalty was not less than Rs. 100A for default of every day where the assessee failed to pay Service tax within time. In these circumstances, the contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly reduced the penalty.4. Shri R.N. Katyal, CHA submitted that the Service Tax was new concept, therefore, they were not fully aware of the provisions of this Act at the relevant time and thereafter when it was pointed out to them now they were required to pay Service tax.5. I find that Section 80 of the Act provide that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79 no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any ...
Rajesh Strips Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC598
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.50/97-C.E. dated 1.8.1997 was denied to the appellants in respect of Runners and Risers arisen in the course of manufacture of Ingots and Billets.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots. Renners and Risers also come into existence prior to the introduction of Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3 of Central Excise Act. Appellants were clearing their final product on payment of duty and runners and risers were also cleared accordingly. With introduction to the Compounded Levy Scheme, Notification No. 50/97-C.E.dated 1.8.1997 was issued which provides concessional rate of duty to ingots and billets of non-alloy steel manufactured prior to induction furnace Unit prior to 1.8.97. The appellants are also claiming the benefit of this notification in respect of runners and risers falling under Chapter heading 7204.90 of Ce...
Vxl Engineers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT192TriDel
2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the appellants is that the adjudicating authority who passed the adjudication order had not granted any opportunity of hearing and this fact was noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that he has no power to remand, therefore, instead of remanding the matter he dismissed their appeal. "I have carefully considered the various submissions made by the appellant. I have also called for the case records from the Refund Section and have examined the same. I have found that personal Hearing in the matter was held before Shri Ravinder Saroop, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) on 24-9-1999 and the impugned order was passed by Shri S.M. Akhter, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) on 10-8-2000. I find this to be an absurd situation which cannot be sustained. The higher judiciary has consistently taken a strong ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bindal Cotex (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT298TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the respondents under Rule 26 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.2. The controversy involved is as to whether the penalty could be set aside on the simple ground that the respondents deposited the duty before the issuance of the show cause notice or not.3. The learned SDR has contended that since the payment of duty was not voluntary, it was rather on the demand raised by the Department, after the detection that the respondents had neither taken out the Central Excise Licence nor paid the additional duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by them. The penalty under Rule 26 read with Section 11AC could not be set aside against the respondents as confirmed by the adjudicating authority, by the Commissioner (Appeals) by following the ratio of law laid down in Ashok Leyland v. CCE, Chennai, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 995 (T) = 2003 (55) RLT 816...
Delhi Transport Corporation Through Shri R.K. Kasana Regional Manager ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT122; 2004(73)DRJ246; 2004(3)SLJ103(Delhi)
Madan b. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 17th January, 2003 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 343/91.2. The Respondent/workman was employed with the Petitioner. He proceeded on leave on 12th June, 1987 and reported back for duty on 30th November, 1987 along with a medical certificate and a request for sanction of leave. On 1st December, 1987, the Petitioner granted him leave without pay and simultaneously gave him a notice for terminating his service with effect from 11th September, 1987. The Respondent replied to the notice but by an order dated 11th December, 1987 the services of the Respondent were terminated. A departmental appeal filed by the Respondent was dismissed and thereafter the Respondent raised an industrial dispute.3. Admittedly, no domestic enquiry was held against the Respondent pursuant to the show cause notice issued to him, nor was he given any hearing.4. In view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in DTC vs. Daya ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Makhni and Tyagi (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)550; [2004]267ITR433(Delhi)
1. Against an order made by Tribunal in IT(SS) No. 204/Del/2002 for block assessment period 1st April, 1986 to 19th April, 1996, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. The company was assessed for the block period and addition was made to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000. The Tribunal has examined the facts in detail. It was pointed out that the share capital stood recorded in the account books maintained by the assessed which were seized during the search and stood considered because income-tax case of the assessed had also been completed from asst. yrs. 1987-88 up to 1995-96 before the date of search and for the asst. yr. 1996-97 the assessment which was made under Section 143(3) of the IT Act after the date of search. It was contended before us that the assessed failed to produce the shareholders before the AO and, thereforee, there was justification in arriving at the above assessment. The Tribunal considered various documents on record in detail. It is noted by the Tribunal in para 4 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »