Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Uni Deritend Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed these appeals against common Order-in-Appeal passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of castings and they were availing the Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of moulds. The input credit was objected by the Revenue and different show-cause notices were issued for denial of the credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of moulds. From 1988 to 1992 the applicant had not taken any credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of moulds.Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 57H of Central Excise Rules for taking credit for the period 1988 to 1992 and suo motu taken the credit in the year 1994. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice for rejection of the claim of the appellant under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty in pursuance to th...

Subhash Chand Chopra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)1087

1. This first appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Asstt. CIT, Circle-I, Saharanpur, dt. 31st Oct., 1996, for (block) asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 upto the period 13th Oct., 1995, passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BC of the IT Act.2. Since large number of issues are involved in this appeal, therefore, it is necessary to reproduce all the grounds of appeal for the sake of convenience upon which this appeal is filed challenging the impugned assessment order. The grounds of appeal are as follows : "1. That the learned AO erred in estimating the concealed income of the appellant for the block period from asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 (upto the period 13th Oct., 1995) at Rs. 15,71,316 (Fifteen lakhs seventy one thousand three hundred sixteen) ignoring or wrongly rejecting the explanation given by the appellant and/or by resorting to conjectures and surmises. 2. That learned AO erred in estimating additional income in the assessment order at various places on the ba...

Standard Surfactants Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)279

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner obtained an advance license for import of capital goods at concessional rates in September, 1994, and imported the said goods. The petitioner had to correspondingly fulfill the export obligations. The petitioner was unable to fulfill the export obligations within the stipulated period of time.2. The Government of India issued a public notice dt. 6th April, 1999, permitting extension of export obligations, but the request made by the petitioner was declined. The petitioner sought to challenge the same by filing CWP No. 497 of 2000 which was disposed of on 23rd Jan., 2001 with direction for the respondents to give a hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, take the decision by a speaking order.3. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a bank guarantee, which was furnished on 16th Feb., 2001. Respondent No. 2, Director General of Foreign Trade, however, vide communication dt. 27th Feb., 2001, suspended the importer-exporter code of the petiti...

Santosh Kumar and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT440

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners being six in number have filed the present petition praying that mandamus be issued to the DDA directing it to allot plots as per Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development And Disposal Of Land In Delhi, 1961, as applicable on the date when lands of the petitioners were acquired. Allotment should be in South Delhi. Rates applicable would be the one as on 2.6.1982, when lands of the petitioners were acquired.2. Petitioner No. 1 purchased 10 biswa of land in village Rangpur by and under sale deed dated 2.9.1981. Petitioner No. 2 likewise purchased 10 biswa of land in same village by the sale deed dated 2.9.1981. Petitioner No. 3 purchased 11 biswa of land in same village by sale deed dated 2.9.1981. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 also purchased 11 biswa of land each in the same village by sale deeds dated 2.9.1981.3. On 19.2.1982 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notifying that certain lands were likely to be acquire...

Prakash Chandra Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT472; 2005(80)DRJ191; 2006(2)SLJ102(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Prakash Chandra, a physically handicapped person with 58% locomotary disability and belonging to Other Backward Classes, seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in the management subject, reserved for the physically handicapped persons. A restraint is also sought against the respondents from converting the reserved post into a general or other category post.2. Petitioner holds a first class MBA from the University of Patna. Besides, he has completed Junior Research Fellowship from University Grants Commission. Petitioner claims to have 7 years teaching experience in the Department of Training and Technical Education and 12 years teaching experience in Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment.3. Respondent No. 1 had advertised, inter alia, for the post of a Lecturer in Management as Subject, in March-April, 2002. One post had been reserved for physically handicapped person. Petitioner, being fully eligible, had been...

Veera Angrish @ Veeranwali Shankar Angrish Vs. Central Board of Second ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT604; 2005(80)DRJ715

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J. WP(C) No. 17997/20041. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays that respondent be directed to incorporate and give effect to the change in name of the petitioner from Veeranwali Shankar Angrish to Veera Angrish who had appeared and passed 10th and 12th Class Senior Secondary Board Examination conducted by the respondent vide Roll No. 6163784 of 2002 and 6243196 of 2004. It is further prayed that respondent be directed to issue certificate duly recording the aforesaid change in its record.2. The petitioner is stated to have changed his name on 29th June, 2004 from Veeranwali Shankar Angrish to Veera Angrish. The petitioner passed the secondary and senior secondary examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in 2002 and 2004 respectively in his old name of Veeranwali Shankar Angrish and certificates for the same were issued by the respondent. After the petitioner got published the aforesaid change of his name in the Gazette, she applied t...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Iffco Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)184

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These three appeals are preferred under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Revenue raising a question that the Tribunal was not correct in allowing the deduction on accrual basis although Section 43B of the Act specifically refers to actual payment. There is no controversy about the fact that the respondent/assessed is required to remit 1 per cent of the net profit as per Section 61 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, and Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules, 1986. Rule 4 of the said Rules refers to contribution towards Co-operative Education Fund and it is in view of this rule that 1 per cent of the net profit is required to be contributed by the Multi State Cooperative Society. This amount is to be placed with the fund maintained by the National Co-operative Union of India Ltd., New Delhi.2. According to the assessed, this contribution is not a cess, tax, duty or fee and, thereforee, Section 43B woul...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kishori Lal and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)185

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal and reference have arisen out of the orders made by the Tribunal for different assessment years.IT Ref. 31 of 19992. For the asst. yr. 1988-89(arising out of the ITA No. 6887/Del/1991), the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing relief to the assessed-firm in respect of salary under Section 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'assessed' (should be read as 'Tribunal committed an error') by holding that the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in N.T.R. Estate v. CIT : [1986]157ITR285(AP) , was applicable in this case as against the decision of jurisdictional Delhi High Court reported in Sanghi Motors v. CIT : [1982]135ITR359(Delhi) ?'3. The questions arose because a sum of Rs. 1,86,626 was paid by way of salary to a person represen...

Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC451

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is an execution petition made by the decree holder seeking issuance of warrants of attachment for recovery of Rs. 90,52,617/- including interest commencing from 15.7.2002 to 31.7.2002 in the sum of Rs. 63,050/- and further interest from 1.8.2002 till the date of realisation at the rate of 16 per cent annum.2. It is stated in the execution petition that the judgment debtor has made part payment in the sum of Rs. 4,61,58,302/- to the satisfaction of the arbitral award which was accepted by the decree holder under protest requesting their right to recover the rest of the amount in terms of the award dated 19.3.2002. The decree holder also wrote a detailed letter to the judgment debtor on 27.7.2002 but of no avail.3. The judgment debtor filed reply to this petition repudiating the claim of the decree holder on the grounds inter alias that out of the total sum of Rs. 5,51,47,869/-, the judgment debtor has paid a sum of Rs. 4,61,58,302/- in terms of the ward towards ...

Cit Vs. Kishori Lal and Sons.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN79(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, CJ. This appeal and reference have arisen out of the orders made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for different assessment years.ITR 31/19992. For the assessment year 1988-89 (arising out of the ITA No. 6887/Del./1991), the Tribunal, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following two questions:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in allowing relief to the assessed firm in respect of salary under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'assessed' (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal committed an error') by holding that the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 157 ITR 295 was applicable in this case as against the decision of jurisdictional Delhi High Court reported in 135 ITR 359?'3. The questions arose because a sum of Rs. 1,86,626 was paid by way of salary to a person representing the HUFs. It was disallowed by the ...