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.
Kapil Kathpalia Vs. the Industrial Finance
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC56
1. This is an appeal against the impugned order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellant, who is the 4th defendant in O. A. 233/98 (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-defendant'), for permission to cross-examine the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed by way of evidence by the respondent-IFCI (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that the affidavits were filed in September, 2001, but, this application was filed at a belated stage, when the matter had been listed for final arguments on 22.8.2002. He also observed that the plea that blank documents were signed, does not raise any triable issue, and that the other plea that the claim of the respondent is barred by limitation has also to be judged from the documents. He further observed that the question whether the appellan...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)706
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 18th Jan., 1999, of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96.The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue read as follows : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh made under Section 68 on account of unexplained share application money introduced in the name of M/s Shri Balaji Portfolio (P) Ltd. (i) despite the fact that the AO had clearly established that the above creditor was a benami company of Shri KG Hazarika; (ii) despite the fact that Shri KC Hazarika had admitted in his statement before the IT authorities that he was the real controller of the above company, that he only provided the above entries on commission basis to the assessee, that advance given by the above company was a bogus and sham transaction, and that the above company acted as a conduit to plough back the money of the assessee-company in the gar...
insilco Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)538
1. This appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 10th Dec., 1999 of learned CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi raises the following grounds of appeal: (i) That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the adjustment made by the AO on account of interest paid to IT Department amounting to Rs. 48,14,502 to the profit as per P&L a/c for computing book profit under Section 115JA of the IT Act. Further, he failed to appreciate that provisions of Section 115JA of the Act are deeming provisions and therefore, have to be interpreted strictly and since as per Clause (a) of Explanation to the above section, only amount of income-tax paid or payable under the provision therefore is required to be added to the profit as per the P&L a/c, it cannot be said that for the purpose of above section interest paid to IT Department is also to be added. Further, in view of definition of term 'tax' given in Section 2(43) of the IT Act and also in view of number of other provisions of the Act, interest payabl...
Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT157TriDel
1. These two appeals are filed by M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. and M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. arising out of two separate Order-in-Appeals having common issue and as such are being taken up for hearing together. Both the appeals are posted today for hearing their Stay Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax demanded from them and the equivalent amount of penalty imposed on them.2.1 Shri V. Laxmikumaran, learned Advocate submitted that both the Appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the business of acting as exclusive agent for foreign television channel to collect the dues from the customers of such channel in India; that M/s. Zee Telefilms had entered into agreement dated 1-1-1999 with M/s. Asia Today Ltd. and the other Appellants has entered into an agreement with M/s. Star Advertising Sales BV of Neetherlands; that the duty and responsibility of the Appellants are for providing of information to the foreign companies regarding displays, arranging sale of advertising and spo...
Acit Vs. Lavish Apartments (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD58(Delhi)
1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 19.6.1998 for assessment year 1995-96. The revenue has raised the following grounds : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law : (i) in holding that the rental income of Rs. 5,58,035/- constituted business income of the assessee and that the assessee was eligible to set off its b/f business losses against such income despite the fact that such rental income is to be assessed under the head "Income from House Property" as held by the Supreme Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust v. CIT (42 ITR 49) and also by the Calcutta High Court for CIT v. Bengal Jute Mills (165 ITR 63); (ii) in holding that the amount of Rs. 6,92,220/- represented business income of the assessee and that the assessee was eligible to set off its b/f business losses against such income despite the fact that the A.O. had clearly established that such income was ...
Ketan Construction Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC155
1. The first appellant imported two consignments comprising in all 31 items of old construction machinery into Mumbai and sought their customs clearance under Bills of Entries 1713 and 1721, both dated 8-2-2000. The imports were from Dubai and the appellant declared a value of about Rs. 1.2 crore GIF. In support of the declared value, the appellant produced invoice No. EXP/051/2000 and EXP/051 A/2000 both dated 5-2-2000 issued by M/s Gulf Stars Auto Spares Parts Establishment of Sharjah, UAE. The consignment were shipped in the same voyage under two bills of lading by vessel M.V. Harare.2. Customs authorities received information that there was misdeclaration and suppression of facts for evasion of customs duty.Accordingly, investigations were taken up by them. Upon examination of the items it was observed that labels of M/s. Ritchie Brothers, Auctioneers alongwith lot Nos. were stuck on them. When the customs authorities searched the office of the importer at Ahmedabad they recovered...
ipca Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC690
1. The question that has come up for consideration before us relates to interpretation of Clause (ii) of proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act 1944. Different views had been expressed by benches of coordinate jurisdiction and, therefore, it became necessary for a Larger Bench to consider the issue.2. Appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The bulk drugs, namely, Frusemide, Trimethoprim, Norfloxacin, Erythromycin Estolate, Pyrantel Pamaoate and Erythomycin Sterate manufactured by the appellants are specified in the Schedule to the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (for short, DPCO). Paragraph 3(1) of the DPCO provides that the Government may with a view to regulate the equitable distribution and increasing supplies of a bulk drug specified in the First Schedule and making it available at a fair price from different manufacturers, fix from time to time a ma...
itc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT33TriDel
1. In the above appeals at the instance of the assessees and Revenue common issues arise for consideration. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the same under a common order.2. These appeals at the instance of M/s. ITC, M/s. Master Tobacco Co.and M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. are directed against Order-in-Original No.5/96, dated 30-8-96. The proceedings relate to show cause notice dated 21-10-1987 covering the period 1-11-79 to 28-2-85 Under the above-mentioned order the Commissioner had rejected the objection raised by the assessee that show cause notice issued was invalid on the ground that it has been issued prior to finalisation of the provisional assessment. Commissioner while ordering finalisation of the provisional assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise directed the authority to intimate the Commissioner as and when the provisional assessment was finalized, so that the Commissioner can proceed with the adjudication on the basis of show cause notice. He also observ...
Pml Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC393
1. Lest we should lose sight of the gravity of the case, we read the operative part of the adjudication order impugned in this appeal. "80. Having regard to the above discussion and findings I pass of following order: (i) I demand duty Rs. 3,97,08,666 (Rs. three crores ninety seven lacs eight thousand six hundred and sixty six only) from M/s. PML Industries Ltd., Vill Behra, Derabassi Distt Patiala under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and direct them to pay forthwith; (ii) I direct M/s. PML Industries Ltd., Derabassi Distt, Patiala to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 3,97,08,666 (r) 20% per annum under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 34/96-CE (NT) dt. 9.10.96 till the said amount is paid; (iii) The demand of the customs duty of Rs. 21,55,28,397 and Central Excise Rs. 9,76,682 involved on the capital goods imported duty free and procured indigenously without payment of duty as pro...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Punj Star Insulation Fibre Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC195
2. The issue in respect of classification of Rockwool, Slagwool and products thereof were referred to the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the case of Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 135 held that these goods were classifiable under Heading 6807 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas in the case of CCE v. Rockwool (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 404 and in the case of NGP Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2003 (152) E.L.T. 414 the same goods were held to be classifiable under Heading 6803 of Central Excise Tariff.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods in question are marketed and known in the market as Slagwool, Rockwool and the same is evident from the invoices produced by the assessee. The contention is that in the trade parlance the name by which the product is known in the market is much more important than the characteristics and ingredients contained in the product. The Rev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »