Delhi Court July 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.
Kimat Baldev Chhiber Vs. Daryodh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT202
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 352/2004 is directed against the judgment and order dated of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) allowing RCA No. 893/2002 filed against the order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller) dismissing the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act').2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are that :'the respondent is a tenant in property bearing No. A-1, Sardar Nagar, CC Colony, New Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs.363/- which rent was enhanced to Rs.399.30 p. w.e.f. 1.12.1997. It was claimed that the respondent failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.4.97 despite service of notice dated 24.11.97, 18/26.12.97 and finally registered notice of demand dated 6.4.98. Along with Daryodh Singh, the legal representatives of deeceased Manohar Kaur, namely, Col. Parvinder Singh, Kulambir Singh, Smt. Birender Kaur and Smt. Jasvinder Kaur were arrayed a...
Vinay Kumar Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)548; [2005]272ITR91(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. Admit.1. The question raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding is perverse inasmuch as the Tribunal has confirmed the finding recorded by the CIT(A) without any material on record.2. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the matter for final disposal.3. The AO, for the asst. yr. 1990-91, made the assessment order, a copy of which is produced on record. The AO assessed the assessed's income for the asst. yr. 1990-91 at Rs. 18,89,432. He made an addition of Rs. 7,00,000 which was reduced by the CIT(A) to Rs. 3,50,000 which has been confirmed by the Tribunal.4. We have gone through the record, that is to say, the orders made by the AO, CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The AO asked the assessed to explain the details of expenditure incurred during the marriage of the son of the assessed. The assessed submitted details at p. 26 of the paper book divided into several heads from (a) to (j) and pointed out that a sum of Rs. 3,14,440...
Sri Rama Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2006)STR30
1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 3,50,721/- and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the demand on the ground that originals showing payment of service tax were not produced for verification.2. I have heard both sides. The applicants' contention that they are sub-agents who are not required to pay service tax as tax is to be paid by the principal party and further submission that photocopies produced for verification should have been accepted as sufficient proof of payment of service tax by the principal parties will be gone into at the time of hearing of the appeal. The issue is contentious and therefore, I direct pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards service tax within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of balance tax and penalty shall stand dispensed with and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Failure to compl...
Multitrade Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT397TriDel
1. The appellant imported a consignment of 100% Silk fabric and declared a value of about Rs. 30 lakhs. This, according to the appellant, was the transaction value. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs enhanced the value of the consignment to Rs. 49 lakhs for the purpose of levying Customs Duty. The reason for such enhancement was that there was import of the same goods at the higher price. The appellant explained that its lower purchase price was because the consignment in question was a stock lot and that accounted for the lower price. This explanation of the appellant diet not find favour with the Commissioner. The Commissioner confiscated the consignment under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act on the charge of mis-declaration of value. A redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 3.5 lakhs were also imposed. The present appeal challenges that order.2. The defence of the appellant before us in the same as the one taken before the Commissioner. During the ...
Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC485
1. All the above appeals involve common issues and are hence taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are franchise bottlers of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and Post Mix Syrup Concentrate falling under Chapter 22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellants and also the business premises of M/s. Punjab Kool Drinks and resumed certain records on the basis of which they formed the view that the appellant had created two dummy units viz. M/s. Punjab Kool Drinks (PKD) and M/s. Chandigarh Kool Drinks (CKD). Show cause notices were issued proposing recovery of duty on the clearances of aerated water, soda and Bag-in-Box on the price at which M/s. PKD and CKD cleared goods to customers. Notice dated 29-5-1999 proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 7,98,27,724/- covering the period May 1994 to August, 1996. Pen...
Rajasthan Electronics and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC750
2. The appellant filed these appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by the CCE. The appellant claimed exemption under Notifications No. 3/01 and 6/02-CE in respect of goods declared as Dusk Dawn System.3. The contention of the appellant is that the Dusk Dawn System is an electronic system for street lights comprising of electronic controller and Solar Photovoltaic Module. The street lights are automatically switched off based on the ambient light level which is sensed by the sensors installed therein. The Dusk Dawn System comprises of the SPV module and the penal housing. The contention is that whole system works on the solar energy and it is an energy saving device used for automatic switching of the street lights making proper use of grid power and increasing the life of the lamps by operating the street light from sunset to sunrise. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner of Central Excise in the adjudication order admitted the fact that Solar Photovoltaic mo...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT362TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs received from their Paonta Sahib Unit was disallowed on the ground that Paonta Sahib Unit have not paid duty.3. The brief facts of the case are that inputs were manufactured at Paonta Sahib Unit of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. were sent to Mohali Unit. The Mohali Unit availed the credit. Thereafter, the Mohali Unit returned the goods to Paonta Sahib Unit, as the inputs were defective and also reversed the credit. The manufacturing Unit i.e. Paonta Sahib Unit after re-processing, cleared the inputs without payment of duty.On receipt of the inputs, the Mohali Unit again took Modvat credit. A separate show cause notice was issued to the Paonta Sahib Unit for demand of duty in respect of re-processed goods on the ground that the activity undertaking by the manufacturing Unit amounts to manufacture as the manufacturing Unit have cleared th...
Cray Research (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)787
1.This is a stay application filed by assessee seeking extension of stay already granted by Tribunal vide its order in Stay Application No.373/Del/2003, dt. 22nd Jan., 2004. At the time of hearing, the counsel of the assessee stated that the stay has already been granted by the Tribunal originally in Stay Application No. 186/Del/2002 with a condition to deposit a payment of Rs. 50 lakhs further and thereafter, the stay was extended by Tribunal by another six months. It was further stated that the stay was granted on the ground that on similar facts a Special Bench has already been constituted in case of Raj Kumar Chawla & Ors. which was pending for disposal. It was further stated that now the Special Bench has fixed the case of Raj Kumar Chawla & Ors. which was pending for disposal. It was further stated that now the Special Bench has filed the case of Raj Kumar Chawla for hearing on 3rd Aug., 2004. Accordingly, it was submitted that the stay in the present case be extended fo...
New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)1SOT116(Delhi)
This is an appeal by assessee against the order of CIT (A) relating to assessment year 1999-2000. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the assessee 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)-XVI, New Delhi (briefly "the CIT (A)) erred in upholding the disallowance of the deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 15,76,17,840.1.1 CIT (A)-XVI, New Delhi erred in holding that appellant is neither engaged in business of production of computer programme nor customized electronic data.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)-XVI, New Delhi (briefly "the CIT (A)") erred in holding that appellant is not entitled to the alternate plea under section 80HHC because neither such claims was made before the assessing officer nor report under section 80HHC(4) was filed.3. That on the facts and in the circumstances the orders of assessing officer/CIT (A)-XVI are bad in law and on facts.4. That the appell...
Ensco Maritime Limited as Agent of Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range [Alongwith Ita
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)91ITD459(Delhi)
1. This batch of appeals involving identical issues and facts have been filed by M/s. Ensco, as agent of 31 assessees who are its employees deputed to India for drilling operations on offshore rigs of ONGC.Grounds of appeal raised in all the appeals comprising the batch are identically worded as under: "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant respectfully submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, erred in computing the assessment on the following ground: (i) In upholding that the salary paid outside India to the Assessee, for the period the assessee was engaged out of India ('Off-period'), after very twenty eight days of service in India ('On-period'), forms part of salary earned for services rendered in India. The appellant respectfully submits that the Learned CIT (A) erred in not applying the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi bench 'C', New Delhi, in the case of Reading & Bates Exploration Company as agen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »