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.
Jt./Addl. Cit Vs. Goyal Mg Gases Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)280
ORDERVimal Gandhi, President.These two appeals by the revenue for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 are directed against the orders of the CIT (A) :2. Grounds of appeal raised in assessment year 1996-97 are as under :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessed is entitled to 100% depreciation on tankers against 20% allowed by the assessing officer thereby allowing depreciation of Rs. 3.64 crores.2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in allowing dep. of Rs. 11.17 crores on wind electricity generators.Similar grounds have been raised in assessment year 1997-98.3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the assessed company M/s. Goyal MG Gases Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the GGL) started business of manufacturing, bottling and marketing of industrial gases like Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, Hydrogen etc. It entered into agreement on 1-2-1996 with M/s. Wind Powers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the WPL) to purchase thr...
Gilard Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC83Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Gilard Electronics is whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding duty from them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture electronic components and they charge design and development charges also from their customers; that the practice adopted by the appellants was to issue as separate Rule 52A invoice for charging design and development charges wherein all the informations such as rate, quantity, amount, PLA No. etc., were also mentioned; that these invoices were also submitted along with the RT 12 returns to the Department; that this practice was being followed since the beginning; that the demand of duty has been confirmed after issuing the show cause notice on 15.2.2001 for the period February 1996 to March 2000; that as the fact of charging design and development charges from their customers had been brought to the knowledge of the Department by way of furnishing the...
Tarsem Lal Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ223CAT
1. Applicant an ex-Photographic Officer in AFFPD was proceeded against for a major penalty on the following articles of charge : Shri T.L. Verma, Photographic Officer in AFFPD, has entered into another marriage while his first wife is living. By his above act, Shri T.L. Verma has violated Rule 21(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby vilated Rule 3 (I)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Shri T.L. Verma, Photographic Officer in AFFPD, submitted false date of birth certificate and false experience certificates with a view to secure employment to the post of Assistant Information Officer in Directorate of Information & Publicity, Delhi Administration, Delhi in Feb. 96. By his above act, Shri T.L. Verma has failed to maintain absolute integrity and thereby violated Rule 3(I)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Shri T.L. Verma, Photographic Officer in AFFPD, did not intimate to the administration the fact of a cr...
Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Nada Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC481; 113(2004)DLT37; 2004(76)DRJ208
R.C. Jain, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of the above referred three applications moved on behalf of the respective defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend the summary suits filed by the plaintiff.2. The relevant facts and circumstances leading to the above applications in brief are that M/s Indian Iron & Steel Company Limited has filed the above referred three suits under the provisions of Rule 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 63,85,547.37 paise (claim in Suit No. 2290/1994); Rs. 74,17,775.67 paise (claim in Suit No. 2335/1994); and for recovery of Rs. 16,18,344.47 (claim in Suit No. 2291/1994) with pendente lite and future interest with the averments and allegations that it is a Government company, a subsidiary of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and the plaints have been signed and the suit instituted by authorised representative of the plaintiff namely Mr. N. Sarkar. The plaintiff, inter alia, is engaged in the busin...
Engineering Project (India) Ltd. Vs. Indiana Engineering Works Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR539(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ119
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The petitioner herein, namely M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. has filed this application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which I find has the oblique motive to confine jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi. The facts, briefly narrated are that the respondent namely, M/s. Indiana Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. had filed a winding-up petition in the High Court at Ranchi, which petition was allowed. The petitioner filed an appeal and in the course of its hearing it came to light that the disputes between the parties were governed by an Arbitration clause. At that juncture, a Consent Order was passed referring the disputes to the Sole Arbitration of Justice L.N. Prasad (Retd.). An Award has since been published, against which objections have been filed by the respondent in the principal city Civil Court, Ranchi. These objections are pending adjudication.2. This petition has been fil...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kinetics Technology (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)422; [2004]271ITR320(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This reference is placed before the court at the instance of the Revenue where the following question of law is referred to the court :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company was an 'industrial company' within the meaning of clause 8(c) of Chapter 2 of the Finance Act, 1977?2. The assessed is deriving income from supervision and commissioning of heaters and erection of gas generation plants, furnaces and also manufactures equipment for these purposes and imparts technical know-how, for which services it received design and consultancy fees.3. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, rejecting the contention of the assessed, the appeal was preferred before CIT(Appeals). On facts, CIT(Appeals) arrived at a conclusion ' that the operation and activities performed by the assessed with regard to nearly all its contracts really amounted to manufacture and/or processing of goods and it involved process of manufacture/production of ...
Cit Vs. Jhalanti and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN78(Delhi)
ORDERLevy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215Held: Order levying interest under sections 139(8) and 215 is not appealable order under section 246(c). Income Tax Act, 1961 s.246Income Tax Act, 1961 s.139(8)Income Tax Act, 1961 s.215In the Delhi High Court q Mr. B.C. Patel, C. J. & Mr. Badar Durrez Ahmed. J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions :1. Whether an appeal lies against an order of charging of interest under section 215 of the Act?2. Whether the Tribunal is empowered in law to invoke rule 40(5) for deleting the levy of interest under section 215?2. Both the questions have to be answered in negative in view of the decision, of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]160ITR961(SC) wherein the question raised was :'Whether orders levying interest under sub-section (8) of section 139 and under section 215 are appealable under section 246 of the Income Tax Act.?...
Cit Vs. G.S. Dugal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN91(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, CJ.At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions are referred to this court for determination :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the advance tax paid by cheque dated 23-3-1976, which was encased on 5-4-1976 relates back to the date of receipt of the cheque by the Income Tax Officer and has to be treated as advance tax or for purpose of section 139(8) ?2. If the answer to question No. 1, is in the negative, whether the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, thereforee, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order ?'2. It is fairly stated by learned counsel for the revenue that question No. 1 is covered by the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CIT and accordingly it is required to be decided against the revenue.3. So far as question No. 2 i...
Prasad Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT343TriDel
2. Appellant filed these appeals against a common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. Appellant made import of "Acrylic Offcuts" and filed Bills of Entry declaring the price of US $ 400 per M.T. The goods were examined by the Customs authorities and the Customs authorities segregated the goods and enhanced the value of 'Acrylic Off-cuts' having width of 36" to US $ 450 PMT and width between 36" to 48" to US $ 615 PMT.3. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant imported Acrylic Offcuts and the contract price was US $ 450 PMT. The action of the Customs authorities for segregation of the goods which were Acrylic Offcuts is not sustainable and further the value was enhanced without any evidence regarding the contemporaneous import.4. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that after taking into consideration the width of the goods in question the value was enhanced taking into consideration of the other imports made by so...
G.C. Jatav Vs. Secretary Cum Chairman, Standing
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ280CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' orders dated 26.7.2001, imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service as well as order dated 29.10.2001, issued by the Appellate Authority, upholding the punishment.2. On disclosure by one Sh. G.R. Baru, Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) was caught in a trap by the CBI, accepting illegal gratification, on which the applicant was proceeded against in a major penalty proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the following articles of charge: That Shri G.C. Jatav, while posted and functioning as Regional Director in Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), then in Regional Office, Chandigarh during 1996 failed to discharge his duties honestly and exhibited lark of integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he directed Shri G.R. Baru, Asstt. Regional Director, ESIC, Regional Office, Chandigarh to demand a bribe of Rs. 5,0007-from Shri Jasbir Singh, Consultant of M/s Mander Forging Pvt. Ltd., Mohali for s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »