Delhi Court April 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.
Ovag Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Veer File Products and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ432
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. By the reasoned impugned Order dated 20th March, 2003 in which a plethora of precedents has been considered, and the facts of the case have been discussed threadbare, the Plaintiff's suit has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Revision is not maintainable.2. The complete answer is available in Alma Parkash and Ors. v. Roshan Lal and Ors., : 77(1999)DLT162 , which reads thus:'In the present case the plaint was returned to the plaintiff/petitioner so as to be filed before a competent Court in accordance with its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 points out that a decree as defined under Section 2, Sub-clause (2) of Civil Procedure Code is deemed to include a rejection of a plaint. He further submits that only an appeal would lie only against the impugned order. Section 2, Sub-section (2) reads as under:'(2) 'decree' means the formal expression of an adjudic...
Ashish Kumar Ahuja Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN349(Delhi)
By the CourtBy way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking relief to direct the Settlement Commission to proceed expeditiously with the application submitted by him, under section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. On behalf of the respondent learned counsel submitted that in view of the decision in case of Deen Dayal Didwania v. Union of India and Others : [1986]160ITR12(Delhi) , this court need not interfere in matter like this. The Division Bench expressed an opinion, that:--'Furthermore, the Act does not contemplate a stay of the assessment proceedings during the period when the Settlement Commission is deciding whether to proceed or not to proceed. If we grant a stay, we will be adding a provision to the statute which is not justified.'And thereafter, it is further observed that:--'However, we are of the view that in case the Settlement Commission does proceed with the application, then the Settlement Commission will have full power to pas...
Ashish Kumar Ahuja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: [2005]278ITR399(Delhi)
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking relief to direct the Settlement Commission to proceed expeditiously with the application submitted by him, under Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On behalf of the respondent learned Counsel submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Deen Dayal Didwania v. Union of India reported in : [1986]160ITR12(Delhi) this Court need not interfere in a matter like this. The Division Bench expressed an opinion, that (page 14) :'Furthermore, the Act does not contemplate a stay of the assessment proceedings during the period when the Settlement Commission is deciding whether to proceed or not to proceed. If we grant a stay, we will be adding a provision to the statute which is not justified.'3. And thereafter, it is further observed that (page 14) :'However, we are of the view that in case the Settlement Commission does proceed with the application, then the Settlement Commission will hav...
Mohan Anand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]139TAXMAN351(Delhi)
ORDERThis petition has been filed challenging the order framing notice dated 10-12-1998 under section 251 Cr. P.C.2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being prosecuted for violation under section 142 of the Income Tax Act for having not supplied information as required in notice served on them under section 142 of the Income Tax Act. He submits that they can only be asked to furnish that information which in their possession but cannot be forced to submit and furnish information which is not in their control and possession. In the present case, what is being asked of them is to obtain confirmation from the bank which information can be obtained under section 131 of the Income Tax Act directly by the assessing authority. He refers to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bombay Trust Corpn. : [1938]6ITR445(Bom) in his support. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the notice calling upon to the petitioners to furnish inform...
Sonic Biochem Extraction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC166
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd., is whether the products manufactured by them are eligible to exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Textured Soya Protein namely "Mealmaker" Soya Chunks and protein rich Soya granules; that Notification No. 5/99 (Sri.No. 6) provides for partial exemption to "Preparations in the nature of instant food mixes for consumption after processing" classified under sub-heading 21.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act subject to the condition that no credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods has been availed of under Rule 57A or 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of exemption Notification on the ground that the impugned products do not become ready for consumption merely after cooking, boiling or dissol...
Sipani Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Cc (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC347
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd., is whether the refund of Customs duty paid by them is available to them and whether bar of unjust enrichment is applicable.2.1 Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants imported parts of motor vehicles for manufacture of Montego cars under 32 Bills of Entry; that as the Customs Authorities were of the view that they had in fact imported cars in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Rules.For interpretation of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, the benefit of Notification No. 72/93 was denied and they were asked to pay an additional duty @ 15%; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 745 to 769/96-B dated 10.9.96 [CC, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Sipani Automobiles Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore, 1996 (16) RLT 646 (CEGAT) held that they are eligible for the benefit under Notification No.72/93-Cus., that immediately after the receipt of the Final Order, they filed the refund claim on 28.9....
Parasrampuria Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT327TriDel
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics, the issue involved is about the availability of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods without their being installed in the factory.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Synthetic Filament Yarn/Polyster Chips/Methanol and avail of the facility of Cenvat credit; that they imported certain capital goods under Project Import during the period from November, 1995 to May, 1996; that in terms of erstwhile Sub-rule (7) of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the Credit cannot be taken by them as the capital goods cannot be installed due to factors beyond their control; that the Modvat Credit Scheme was replaced by the Cenvat Credit Scheme w.e.f. 1-4-2000; that in view of new Rule 57AC(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 they had taken Cenvat credit in 2000 to the extent of 50% of the Additional Customs duty paid by them on the capital goods imported by them; that furt...
Sargodha Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT519TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding confirmation of duty, confiscation of the goods and imposition of the penalty on the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that no proper verification of the raw material lying in the factory of the appellants was carried out by the Central Excise officers. They only examined the raw material lying in the factory and did not verify about the material which was in the process of manufacture. He has also contended that in a case of alleged shortage of the raw material, no duty could be confirmed in the absence of any allegations regarding the clandestine removal of the raw material as such or of the finished goods produced from that raw material.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. He has argued that since Modvat credit was availed by the appellants on the r...
Vasundhara Lpg (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)860
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dt. 18th Aug., 2003 for asst. yr. 2001-02. The dispute arising in this appeal centers around interpretation of the provisions contained under Section 115JB particularly in the context of the facts of the present case.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing consultancy services. For asst. yr. 2001-02 assessee filed return of income on 16th Oct., 2001, declaring nil income. AO noticed that in the P&L a/c, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 has been credited with the narration "provision for contingencies written back" and net profit has been worked out at Rs. 9,60,595. Regarding the amount of Rs. 12,00,000 written back in the books, the assessee stated that this comprises of two items each of Rs. 6,00,000 on account of salary of the director debited to the P&L a/c for asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which has been written back since no such sala...
Abhinitam Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi384; 2004(74)DRJ137
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The Jubilee Hall Hostel of the Delhi University refused the petitioner the residence compelling him to knock at the doors of the Court for redressal of his grievance.2. The petitioner joined the LL.B course of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi but was able to get the hostel accommodation only on 1.10.2002 when he was in his final year. This admission was based on the basis of his merit and he continued to reside in the hostel. The petitioner successfully completed the course study for the LL.B degree in July, 2003 and after qualifying in the entrance examination, was admitted to the LL.M first year course of the Faculty of Law. The petitioner was desirous of continuing to avail of the hostel accommodation and was permitted to occupy the accommodation in terms of the Hand Book of Information and Rules 2003-2004 of the Jubilee Hall, University of Delhi (hereinafter the provisions of the same being referred to as the Rules). In terms of Rule 7.4.7 the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »