Delhi Court May 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.
ito Vs. Shammi Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)77
ORDERS.K. Yadav, J.M.:This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,24,000 on account of bogus gift. The assessed has also filed the cross-objection in which besides supporting the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) he has raised a plea that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not adjudicated ground No. 10 relating to charging of interest of Rs. 21,204 under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record and noticed that the return of income filed by the assessed was processed on 13-10-1992. Subsequently, the Department of Enforcement Directorate had conducted investigation in the case of Shri Sameer-Mahajan, who had given gifts to various beneficiaries in India out of his NRI account No. 99 maintained wit...
Alok Gupta Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC241
1. This appeal of Shri Alok Gupta is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 upon him under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962.2. The brief facts leading into imposition of penalty are like this.Certain imports of glassware were made in March 2001 in the name of M/s. Essem Enterprises, F-440, Kanpur, New Delhi. Two bills of entry being Nos. 238513 and 238522 both dated 14.3.2001 were filed in the inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi for the clearance of these goods. The appellant went to the customs in connection with the clearance of the goods. Apprehending that the goods have been under valued, customs authorities questioned the appellant and recorded a statement under Section 108 or the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant explained that he was a trader in both indigenous and imported crockery and he has arranged the import of the goods, alonwith Shri Rohit Kumar who is the Proprietor of M/s. Essem Enterpries. As regards details of the import, he stated th...
Sidharth Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC562
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of lubricating oil and lubricating greases which are liable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In addition to manufacture for themselves, the appellants also undertake job work manufacture for others. The present appeal relates to duty payment on such job work carried out for M/s. Western Valvoline Ltd., and M/s.Total Lubricants India Pvt. Limited. The appellants paid duty on the goods manufactured for the job workers on the basis of the depot sale price of the parties who entrusted the job work manufacture, after making certain deductions from the sale price. The impugned orders have held that in carrying out the job work, the appellant was acting as an agent of the parties who got the goods processed and therefore, the depot price should be the basis for assessment that too without any deduction. As a result of the finding, duty demand of over Rs. 1.5 lakhs has been raised, in addition to imp...
Crop Care Pesticides Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC273
1. The appellant is a small-scale manufacturer of pesticides. The pesticides are manufactured in the appellant's own brand name as well as in the brand name of others. Duty demand was confirmed on the ground that the pesticides manufactured in the brand name of others could not have availed of the small-scale exemption.2. The contention raised in the present appeal is that this dispute had come up before the Tribunal earlier and the Tribunal had passed final Order No. 43/2001-C dated 23.3.2001 in Appeal No. E/2416/00-C with the following directions:- "5. Appellants were manufacturing pesticides. Rule relating to House Mark is applicable only in respect of medicine. The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in the context of exemption of patent and proprietary medicines. That principle relating to assessment of patent and proprietary medicine is not applicable to the assessment of pesticides involved in the present appeal. The mark 'Agr Evo' connected the goods to Hoechst Schering...
Smt. Rishalo (Deceased) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT533; 2004(75)DRJ103
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 10.9.2002 in LAC No. 1273/96. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:2. The appellant's land measuring 3 bighas 18 bids was situated in the revenue estate of village Bharthal was acquired vide notification dated 20.6.86 for public purpose of an approach road for the Bijwasan Oil Terminal for Bharat Petroleum. The Land Acquisition Collector while Award No. 5/88-89 awarded Rs.11,000/- per bigha for the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the order of the Land Acquisition Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant aggrieved by that order has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 before this Court.3. Mr. S. S. Dalal, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal d...
Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs. D.P. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3151; 2004(75)DRJ248
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition under Section 2(b), 11, 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiation of proceedings against the respondents/contemnors for disobedience of the interim order passed by the Court on 19.8.2003, staying proceedings in Appeal No.5/2003. The said interim order continued from time to time. It is stated that notwithstanding the said order, respondent No. 1/contemnor continued with the proceedings despite the knowledge of the stay order. 2. Union of India had been arrayed as the respondent through the Additional Secretary, who happens to be respondent No. 1/contemnor. Counsel for Union of India had appeared and was aware of the proceedings. 3. Notice in the contempt petition was issued and detailed affidavit in reply has been filed. It is stated that the said respondent No.1/contemnor was not at all aware of the stay order passed. It is stated that respondent No.1/contemnor was performin...
Lg Hotline Cpt Ltd. Vs. Viacom Electronics Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC528; 2004CriLJ3459; 2004(75)DRJ325
Manmohan Sarin, J.1.Petitioner-M/s. L.G.Hotline CPT Ltd., has filed the present petition under Section 2 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No.1 being M/s.VIACOM Electronics Ltd., Respondent No.2, Baron International Ltd. and Mr.Kabir Mulchandani and Ms.Shakun Mulchandani, respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are stated to be both having controlling interest in M/s.VIACOM Electronics Ltd. 2.The facts giving rise to the filing of the contempt petition may briefly be noted:- (i)Petitioner M/s.LG Hotline CPT Ltd., had instituted suit bearing No.2620/2001 under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,73,08,364/- from the defendants M/s.VIACOM Electronics Ltd., and Baron International Ltd The defendants in the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, had sought leave to defend. Defendant No.1 vide IA.No.8196/2002 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›