Delhi Court June 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.
Narendra Kumar Nagpal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)1278
1. This appeal is preferred on behalf of the assessee against the block assessment order pertaining to the block period 1st April, 1985 to 15th Sept., 1995, on various grounds.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the documents placed on record.3. The facts, in brief, borne out from the record are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 15th Sept., 1995, and the books of account and documents as per Annex. A of the Panchnama were found and seized. Cash amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakhs out of the total cash found of Rs. 1.6 lakhs was seized.On the basis of the documents seized, various additions were made by the AO, which are under challenge before us through this appeal.4. Through ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the order of the AO that he has wrongly treated an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 received from Shri Fateh Chand as advance booking of flat, as unexplained cas...
Manoj Prabhakar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)625
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 3rd Jan., 2003, for the block period 1st April, 1990 to 20th July, 1990.2. Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri B.N. Verma, senior Departmental Representative represented the Department.3. Ground No. 1 taken in this appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.4. Ground Nos. 2, and 3 : These grounds challenge the sustenance of addition of Rs. 24,03,000 and the addition of Rs. 7,00,000 on account of purchase and sale of properties by the assessee. The relevant facts concerning the issues involved in these two grounds are as under: 4.1 The assessee was a prominent cricketer, On the basis of information that some cricket players and other individuals were involved in betting and fixing of matches, a search action was conducted under Section 132(1) of the IT Act at the residence of the assessee, i.e., at R-10, Nehru Enclave, New Delhi, The f...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)1093
1. These eight appeals filed by the Revenue against the consolidated order passed by the learned CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi, dt. 17th Aug., 2000, for financial years 1989-90 to 1996-97 involve a common issue relating to alleged short deduction of TDS in respect of salary paid to the employees in the form of leave travel allowance treating the same as exempt and, consequently, action in treating the assessee-company as a person in default under Section 201(1) and in levy of interest in respect of the said amount under Section 201(1A).2. In this case, the assessee-company, while deducting tax at source from the salary paid to its employees, did not include leave travel allowance paid during the year under consideration treating the same as exempt under Section 10(5) on the basis of declaration filed by the said employees confirming of having actually spent the said allowance on travel. A survey under Section 133A conducted in the assessee's case, however, revealed that the assessee-company d...
Konia Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT51TriDel
1. The issue that has come up for consideration before the Larger Bench is whether Additional Director General of DRI has power to issue notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Reference was necessitated in view of the difference of opinion between different Benches of the Tribunal of coordinate jurisdiction.2. The challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur dated 12-7-2001. Order related to import made by the appellant-company under Bill of Entry dated 7-5-1998. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value declared and demanded duty to the extent of Rs. 5,20,729/- from the appellant-company under Section 28 of the Customs Act in addition to the duty already paid. Penalty under Section 112(a) and interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The above proceedings before the Commissioner were initiated pursuant to a show cause notice dated 29-12-2000 issued by the Additional Director Generation of DRI.3. The contention of...
Zee Telefilms and Star India Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: (2006)3STR304
1. In these applications the petitioners seek to rectify an alleged mistake on the face of the Final Order Nos. 9-10/2004-NB(A), dated 11-3-2004 passed by this Tribunal in their Appeals ST-4 & 5 of 2003-NB(A). We had affirmed demand of service tax and interest ordered under the adjudication orders against the petitioners while setting aside the imposition of penalty. In these applications, the petitioners contend that while passing the final order we had overlooked Sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Finance Act, 2002 which made retrospective amendment to Section 65(13) of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2001. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 reads as under :- (2) Any action or anything done or omitted to be done or purported to have been taken or done or omitted to be done under this chapter at any time during the period commencing on and from the 16th day of July, 2001 and ending with the day, on which the Finance Bill, 2002 receives the assent of the President, sha...
Garg Casteels P. Ltd., Shri Arun Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC559
1. Appeals No. E/3394 & 3395/98-NB(A) are at the instance of M/s. Garg Casteels Pvt. Ltd. and its Director challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot dated 15.1.98. The Appeals No. E/3307 & 3308/99-A at the instance of M/s. Jaidev Alloys Ltd. and its Director are directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot dated 21.5.99.2. Under the impugned order dated 15.1.98 the Commissioner directed reversal of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 27,82,213 alleging that the credit was wrongly taken by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,60,000 was imposed on the company and Rs. 50,000 on the Director respectively under Rule 173Q and Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules. Under Order dated 21.5.99 direction was to reverse modvat credit of Rs. 28,23,796 on the same allegation. A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 was imposed on the company under Rule 173Q and Rs. 75,000 on the Director respectively under Rule 209A of th...
Ram Niwas Mundra Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC25
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that this appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in O.A. 168/2001, by which the right of the appellant to file the written statement was closed without the appellant having been supplied with the copy of the paper book as contemplated under Rules 9 and 11 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.3. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent states that the grievance of the appellant can be redressed today itself by supplying the copy of the paper book. Mr. Ashim Vachcher also states that even on the previous dates of hearing the 1st respondent was ready with the copy of the paper book to be supplied to the appellant. Today, in Court, Mr.Vachcher has handed over the copy of the paper book in O.A. 168/2001 to Mr. B.C. Parakh, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the first grievance of the ap...
Graduate Agro and Mechanical Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC408Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Graduate Agro & Mechanical Engineers, relates to classification of the products, namely, water flow controller, flanges and manifold.2. The appellants, under their letter dated 11.5.2004, have requested to decide the appeal filed by them on merits. We, therefore, heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR and perused the records. The appellants have classified the impugned the records under Heading 84.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of the blast furnace; that these items are not of general use so as to be classified under Subheadings 8481.99 and 73.07 of the Tariff; that the impugned goods are classified as per their predominant function and use; that Heading No. 84.17 specifically covers, within its spectrum, spares for drain pot and, therefore, the goods are classifiable under the said heading.They have also mentioned in their memorandum of appeal that when an article can be put to multiple usage, it is to b...
Hindustan Processors Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC265
1. These are four appeals filed by M/s. Hindustan Processors Ltd. and their Director, Shri Navjot Jhanwar, against common Order-in-Appeal No.584-588/2003 dated 11.12.03 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty confiscation of excisable goods found in excess and penalties imposed on both the appellants.2. We heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.Learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants manufacture man made fabrics on job work basis; that the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 9.11.2000; that the scrutiny of the documents revealed that they had not accounted for 1,06,994m of grey fabrics received by them in their Form IV register during the period 1.11.2001 to 9.11.2001; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 34/2003 dated 14.7.03 has confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 8,55,952 besides impos...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Savico International and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC44
1. Appellant-Punjab and Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Bank') filed the Civil Suit for the recovery of Rs. 15,15,308.67 with pendente lite and future interest at 24.75% per annum with quarterly rests from date of suit till realisation and costs against the respondents herein (who are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit; and hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalandhar. The same was subsequently transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') after the passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and taken on the file of the DRT as O.A. 353/1996.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the impugned final order dated 19.5.2000 entitling the appellant-Bank to recover Rs. 3,60,119.62 with future interest @ 14.50%'per annum with quarterly rests from 1.2.1993 till realisation. He dismissed the rest of the claim.3. Aggrieved the appellant-B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »