Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)236
1. These appeals by the Revenue and the assessees for asst. yrs.1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 involve common points and, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.Grounds raised by the Revenue in their appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 are as follows : "1. The learned CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances has erred in deleting the disallowance of royalty under Section 35A or 40A(2) amounting to Rs. 5,27,35,429. 2. The learned CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,73,440 on account of deferred revenue expenditure." "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of Rs. 3,19,553 on account of prior period expenses is unjustified, illegal and unwarranted. The expenses debited to the P&L a/c pertain to the. relevant previous year only. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,19,553 deserves to be deleted in total. 2. That on the...
Shiv Prasad Vs. the Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of Nct o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT531; [2005(104)FLR1087]
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, Shiv Prasad, is the second son of deceased Ram Chander, who was employed with respondent No.2 i.e. Delhi Kannad Senior Secondary School, as a Watchman. He joined the Service, when he was 19 years old i.e., on 6.10.1961. He was to superannuate on 13.12.2002. It was just 10 months before his superannuation, when cruel hand of fate struck and he passed away on 13.2.2002.3. Petitioner before the Court is the second son, who is married having two children. The deceased also left behind his widow Babuna Devi and an elder son, Rajinder Prasad. Besides he had two daughters, who are married and settled. The widow Babuna Devi is stated to be working as a maid in Progressive School, drawing emoluments of Rs.2,000/- or so. The elder son, Rajinder Prasad, is stated to be living in Village, cultivating the land, owned by the deceased and his family. It is the petitioner, Shiv Prasad, who...
Prahlad Singh Rekhi Vs. Smt. Bhawani Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT137; 2004(76)DRJ131
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. RC-Rev. 590 of 1996 is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.1996 passed by the learned Rent Controller rejecting eviction petition No. E.63/89 under Section 14B, 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove his bona fide in respect of the demised premises.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Rent controller, are that :'the respondents are tenant in respect of one room, common latrine-cum-bath forming part of premises No. A-389, defense Colony, New Delhi. Premises were let out of one Shri Prem Ballabh in the year 1961. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is the owner of the demised property which was let out for residential purposes. The petitioner retired from the armed forces as Naib-Subedar. He has been living on the first floor with his son Devender Pal Singh, to whom the accommodation at the first floor belongs. The petitioner wants to live in his own house on th...
Engineering Projects (India) Limited Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Deve ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR607(Delhi); [2005]128CompCas918(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT465; 2004(76)DRJ230
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question that arises in the present case is whether this Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction in respect of the present application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts in brief, as per the narration in the Petition, are that the Petitioner has its Registered and Head Office at New Delhi with Regional and Branch Offices in many other parts of India. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (G. Noida in brief) engaged the Petitioner for the construction of 60 M wide road in Greater Noida, at the contract value of Rs. 5.37 crores. For reasons that need not be dilated in detail, including an increase in the price of store ballast, the Petitioner had sought a Revision of rates, which was not acceded to. Consequently, a demand for the appointment of an Arbitrator was made by the Petitioner. Certain Fixed Deposits Receipts (FDRs) are stated to have been encased in the interregnum. Pursuant to their Agreement, the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modern Bakeries India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)551; [2005]273ITR237(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1975-76, two questions are referred in these two references for opinion of the Court. The questions are as under :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of entertainment expenditure made by the ITO to the extent of Rs. 98,007/Rs. 47,921 in the asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1975-76, respectively, despite the express provisions contained in Section 37(2B) of the IT Act?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal is correct in law in confirming order of the CIT(A) in holding that the cost of machinery amounting to Rs. 62,32,350/Rs. 2,41,646 for asst. yrs. 1974-75/1975-76, respectively, gifted by the Government of Australia to the Government of India and shown in the balance sheet of the assessed-company as a liability owed to the Government of India, should be included a...
Alok Chopra (Dr.) and anr. Vs. Dilip Kapoor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT596
Vikramajit Sen, J. is No. 8144/2003 in CS (OS). No. 1534/2003:1. On the first date of hearing it was recorded in the ex parte ad interim injunction Order that, 'Farm land bearing No. 4, Khuller Farm, Mandi Road, Sultan Pur, Mehrauli, Delhi-110 030 was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 by way of separate registered sale deeds. Thereafter, a building was constructed on the said land in 1984. The property is alleged to be held jointly. The plaintiffs are residing at the said property. It is contended that on 2nd August, 2003, some anti-social elements along with truck loads of household material came to the farm stating that defendant No. 5 had purchased the share of defendants 1 to 3 in the said land and that they had come to obtain possession of portion in the farm house on behalf of defendant No, 5. They refused to show any document of title. Local police was called. The plaintiffs are unable to ascertain as to whether the defendants 1 to 3 relinquished th...
Cit Vs. National Chemical Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN400(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 73,723 was business expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when there was no actual capital borrowed for the purposes of the business ?'2. In the question, it transpires that by mistake, it is mentioned as section 36(1)(ii), but it should be read as 36(1)(iii). In the opinion of the court, the aforesaid question does not arise in the instant case. It is clear from the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessed firm was allotted an industrial plot at Faridabad for Rs. 30 lakhs by the State Government. The price of the plot was Rs. 13,16,480.20% of the price was payable at the time of allotment and the balance was to be paid in 10 equal Installments carrying an interest of 7% per annum. The interest of Rs. 73,723...
Mega Overseas Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC49
2. The appellant filed these appeals against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, the appeals are being taken up together. The appellant made import of LDPE processed granules and filed two Bills of Entry declaring the price as US $ 390 PMT. The Custom authorities enhanced the value of US $ 483.38 PMT in one case and US $ 499.32 in respect of 2nd Bill of Entry. This enhanced price is accepted by the appellant and duty was paid accordingly. Thereafter, the Custom authorities issued notice to the appellant for further enhancement of nature of goods. The value of the goods imported was enhanced to US $ 533.75 PMT and US $ 544.99 PMT. The appellant contested second enhancement and the adjudicating authority confirmed the differential duty on the basis of enhanced nature of goods. The appellant filed appeals but the same were dismissed.3. The contention of the appellant is that the second enhancement in respect of v...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aswm Spinning Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT57TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has sought increase in the penalty amount which the Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-.2. The respondents have also filed cross objections seeking setting aside even the duty amount as well as penalty in toto.4. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents during August, 99 availed credit of Rs. 4,39,623/- on the strength of photocopy of duplicate copy of the bill of entries. When the jurisdictional range office of the central excise pointed out to the respondents that the credit has been wrongly availed by them, they deposited the amount along with interest on 28-10-1999. Still the Show cause notice was issued to them on 24-11-1999. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondents. They, however, filed appeal against that order before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein they only challenged the imposition of penalty and not the confirmation of duty. The Commissio...
Sanghvi Woods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT54TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment to their refund claim.2. The authorities below have allowed the refund but ordered its deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund by applying the abovesaid principle.3. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed for decision on merits.5. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants lodged refund claim of Rs. 35,046/- on the ground that they have wrongly paid duty of that much amount on their clearances although at that time they were working under the SSI exemption. But it is well settled that before claiming the refund of duty, every assessee is required to satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 11B of the Act. He is required to prove that incidence of duty has not been passed on by him to the ultimate consumer. This condition the appellants have failed to satisfy for having failed to pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »