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.
Picric Limited Vs. Jcit, Special Range 3
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD301(Delhi)
1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption Under Section 10B in respect of interest income of Rs. 18,77,170/- on fixed deposits.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee was engaged in the business of export and was eligible for exemption Under Section 10B being 100% Export Oriented Unit. In view of the same, the assessee declared NIL income after adjusting brought forward losses of the earlier years. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the total income declared by the assessee included the interest of Rs. 18,77,171/- which was earned from FDRs with the Bank of Baroda, Sonepat. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why such income should not be treated as Income from Other Sources. "Company had during the financial year 1996-97 had earned interest income of Rs. 27,02,538. The breakup of which has been submitted with you office vide separate letter of even date. With regard to interest inco...
Karan Mahendru and anr. Vs. Vatika Plantations (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT264
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In the present suit filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of specific performance and in the alternative, for a decree for recovery of the money that is paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, various issues were framed by this Court on the pleadings of the parties. One of the issues that was framed by order dated 28.1.2004 is whether this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. By order dated 28.1.2004, it was observed that the issue framed regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try this suit be tried as a preliminary Issue as the said issue goes to the root of the matter. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Counsel appearing for the parties advanced their arguments on the aforesaid preliminary issue framed by this Court regarding territorial jurisdiction.2. The plaintiffs filed the present suit with the contention that on 5.6.1987 the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase th...
Rajender Jaipuria Vs. Tilak Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ388
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Revision Petition the Orders dated 3.2.1998 granting leave and permission to the Plaintiffs to institute a Suit in a representative capacity, as envisaged in Section 92 of the CPC, has been assailed on various grounds.2. It has firstly been contended by the Petitioner that the learned Trial Court fell into error in holding that there was no necessity to issue notice to the Defendant prior to granting or refusing of Leave under Section 92 as at that stage it was only the subjective satisfaction of the Court that was required and that such an order was of administrative nature. In this regard the observations in Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Delhi Cantonment and others v. Amarjit Singh Sabharwal and others AIR 1984 Delhi 39 are apposite. It had been observed therein that the object of Section 92 is to protect the public trust of a charitable and religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them; that before permission/leav...
Modipon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)110; [2004]270ITR257(Delhi)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, challenging the order made under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1980-81 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on February 12, 1988. Against the assessment made by the Assessing Officer, the appeal was preferred and as a consequence of an appellate order, the Assessing Officer was required to compute the figures. It appears that the Assessing Officer pointed out in the computation sheet as under :'Refund consequent upon the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated May 21, 1984 :1. Rs. 67,12,797 by way of tax and interest Section 139(8) 1,05,927Section 216 49,557Section 220(2) 10,66,5912. The Assessing Officer has thereafter separately calculated the amount of interest payable to the assessed under Section 244(1A) of the Act on Rs. 9,56,254. The matter was argued at length by learned counsel for the petitioner. Two issues essentially arises in this matter, whi...
Katyani Foods and Beverages (P) Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC599
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Katyani Foods & Beverages (P) Ltd., is whether their factory is situated in a 'rural area' so as to make them eligible for the benefit of Notification No.9/01-CE dated 1.3.01.2. Shri D.N. Mehta, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are having a factory in 'rural area' of village Raiwala in District Dehradun wherein they manufacture mineral water; that the benefit of Notification No. 9/01 CE has been denied to them on the ground that village Raiwala has been notified by the State Government as an area covered under the Haridwar Development Authority, which is a body constituted for development of urban area and accordingly Raiwala is an urban area. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that Raiwala village, where their factory is situated, is a rural area as per land revenue records; that they had produced a certificate from Gram Panchayat of village Raiwala confirming that Raiwala is situated in a rural area; that, ...
Cce Vs. Varnoj Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC489
1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether Central Excise duty is leviable on the goods manufactured by M/s.Varnoj Associates.2. Shri Virag Gupta, learned DR, submitted that the Respondent manufacture ducting, chutes, supporting structure, platform, stair case and other items for installation of clinker collers, electrostatic precipitator for M/s. Vikram Cement; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held the product non-excisable holding that no evidence has been adduced by the department to suggest that the impugned items were goods capable of being marketed as such relying upon the Board's Order No.58/1/2002-CX dated 15.1.2002 issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act. The learned DR, further, submitted that Shri P.N. Jethwani, Proprietor of the Respondent firm, had admitted in his statement dated 19.10.95 that he had manufactured goods for M/s. Vikram Cement from material supplied by them; that he had also admitted that the manufactured goods for CCI, N...
Beer Auto Stores and anr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC253
1. Appeal No. 580/2001 filed by M/s Beer Auto Store is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs confiscating 18,716 Ball Bearings valued at Rs. 30,84,100 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the goods against payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and imposing on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act. The other appeal filed by Shri Taranjeet Singh is against a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on him by the Commissioner under Section 112 of the Act.2. Officers of Customs had conducted search of the shop and godown premises of M/s Beer Auto Store in the presence of two independent witnesses and Shri Taranjeet Singh who introduced himself as the Proprietor of the business. The search of the godown resulted in the recovery of 39 packages containing 18,716 Ball Bearings with foreign markings, collectively valued at Rs. 30,84,100. Shri Taranjeet Singh could not produce any documentary evidence of legal acquisition and possession of the ...
Jindal Photo Films Ltd. and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC316
1. These appeals are against an order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, the operative part whereof reads as under: "Accordingly, I order as: (i) I deny the benefit of Notification Nos. 56/98 dated 1.8.98 and 22/99 dated 28.2.99 and confirm the SAD totally amounting to Rs. 4,88,04,606 (Rs. four crores eighty eight lakhs four thousand six hundred six only) for the period from 18.9.98 to 30.6.98 in respect of the imports of photographic of jumbo rolls collectively valued at Rs. 83,82,30,415 in terms of the undertaking given by them read with Section 28(1). I further order that Rs. 2,50,00,000 deposited by the importer be adjusted against the total duty demanded and confirmed. (ii) I hold that CPFL are also liable to pay interest @ 24% on the said duty amount in terms of the provisions of Section 28AB. (iii) I hold that the imported goods are liable for confiscation under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods however are not available for the confis...
Cce Vs. Alcon Engg. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC415Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether respondents, M/s. Alcon Engg. Industries can avail the exemption from payment of duty in one unit and simultaneously pay the duty and avail MODVAT Credit in their 2nd unit.2. Sh. H.C. Verma, learned D.R., submitted that the respondents are having two units; that in one unit they are manufacturing plastic containers falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff; that initially, they opted for payment of duty under Notification No.38/97-CE dated 27.6.1997; that, subsequently, they surrendered their registration; that in their second unit, the respondents are manufacturing cable terminals falling under Heading 85.36 of the Central Excise Tariff on which they were paying duty as per Notification No. 38/97 and, thereafter, under Notification No. 9/98-CE dated 2.6.1998; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 14/01 dated 19.7.2001, demanded the duty on plastic containers and imposed penalty o...
Dhanuka Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC697
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. "I have gone through the records of the case and submissions made by the importer during the personal hearing and through their various letters. There is no dispute that the goods are imported in violation of the conditions of the EXIM Policy as the importer could not furnish the registration as required under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and accordingly the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer is also liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. I order for the confiscation of the subject goods valued at Rs. 70,63,587/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, however I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods for re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 7,00,0007- (Rupees seven lakhs only). I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,0007- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer u...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »