Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Smt. Angoori Devi JaIn Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)1SOT413(Delhi)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 3-6-2003 against the order of the learned CIT (A), Panchkula dated 17-3-2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 for assessment year 1993-94.In this appeal the assessee has disputed re-opening of assessment under section 147 and addition of Rs. 1,15,000 made to the declared income on the ground of unexplained gift. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee filed a return of income on 23-6-1993 declaring total income at Rs. 1,37,580. This return of income was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28-7-1993. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act after recording the reasons on the basis of certain information. In response the assessee filed her return of income on 28-6-2001 declaring the same income as in the earlier returns filed on 23-6-1993.According to the assessing officer, information was received from ...

Vivek Ispat Udyog Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]2SOT65(NULL)

ORDERS.C. Tiwari, A.M.This appeal has been filed by the assessed on 18-3-1997 against the order of learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 15-1-1997 in the case of the assessed in relation to assessment order under section 143(3) for assessment year 1990-91.2. The main dispute in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 6,20,461 made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in relation to the trading results declared by the assessed.3. The facts of the case leading to this ground of appeal which is ground of appeal No. 4, briefly are that the assessed was engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel items mainly cold rolled and hot rolled sheets. The assessing officer noticed that this year the assessed has disclosed a gross profit of Rs. 2,49,899 @ 1.584% as against 2.2% in the immediately preceding assessment year 3.15% in the immediately succeeding assessment year. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer asked the assessed to subst...

Thankur Singh Rawat and ors. Vs. Jagjit Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)ILLJ775Del

ORDERManju Goel, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order of Writ Court dated 28th January, 2003 upholding the view of the Labour Court that the appellants were not entitled to back wages. The appellants were 'Peons' in the office of respondent No. 1 Jagjit Industries Limited. Their services were terminated on 11th December, 1993. They raised an Industrial Dispute which was eventually referred to the Labour Court vide Reference Order dated 27th October, 1995. The Labour Court held vide its Award dated 28th November, 2000, that the termination of their services was illegal. The Labour Court directed that the appellants be reinstated in service. However, back wages were denied on the ground that no averments were made in the statement of claim filed by the appellants to the effect that they were unemployed. Further, there was also no statement to this effect in the evidence. The Labour Court took into consideration the plea of the management that neither in the state...

Subhash Chander Sharma Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.3.2002 passed by District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank inasmuch as the cheque issued by him in favour of finance company was returned with the reasons effects not yet cleared, present again was dismissed. 2. We have perused the impugned order and find that on 7.2.2000 the appellant had credit balance of Rs. 1,264.30 in his saving account No. 9214 and had deposited a cheque No. 327078 dated 7.2.2000 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 38,446/-in the late hours when the clearing for the day had already lapsed. This fact is apparent from the deposit slip received by the respondent as there is remark that it was received late for days clearing. The cheque deposited by the appellant was sent for clearing to Canara Bank on 8.2.2000 and was cleared on 10.2.2000. In the meantime on 9.2.2000 the appe...

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Anjana Sethi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On receiving inflated bills of electricity the respondent protested by sending letter dated 22.2.2002 to the appellant but no action was taken thereon in spite of the fact that she deposited Rs. 240/- in cash on 29.8.2002 as fee for checking the meter. Neither the meter was checked nor was the excess payment made by her under protest was adjusted. Vide impugned order dated 21.6.2004 the appellant has been directed to revise the bill of the respondent on the average consumption of 576 units per month from 1.6.2002 till the installation of new meter and also to adjust the excess amount charged by the appellant beyond the average units in the subsequent bills and pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation besides cost of Rs. 500/- 2. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid directions the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3.The appeal appears to be misconceived as the appellant is guilty of grossest kind of deficiency in service inasmuch as it did not pay any heed to...

Ambica Steel Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC513

1. These appeals arise out of the denial of modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE. The appellants had received their inputs in question directly from manufacturers who were covered under compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The invoice covering the sale of the inputs stated that "certified duty liability discharged as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP(3)" and "goods cleared under Rule 96ZP(3)". The credits have been denied on the ground that full amount of duty had not been paid by the manufacturer of input.2. The contention of the appellant is that credit under Notification 58/97-CE is a flat rate (as a % value of the inputs) and has no bearing on the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of the inputs. The only requirements are that purchase of input should be directly from manufacturer and the sale invoice should contain a declaration that "appropriate duty of excise" has been paid. During the hearing of the c...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vinod Kumar and Bros. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC139

1. In the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-appeal, the controversy relates to the question as to whether the products in dispute are classifiable under Chapter Heading 9.03 (as spices) or under Chapter Heading 2108.99 (as edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included). The name of the products, their components and processes undertaken are detailed as under :- Dry mango, pepper, cumin, dry ginger, akarkara, salt, black salt, citric, etc.Pomegranate, pepper, cumin, akarkara, dry ginger, dry mango, large cardamom, rose petals, salt, sugar, citric, etc.Pomegranate, pepper, cumin, akarkara, dry ginger, dry mango, large cardamom, rose petals, salt, sugar, citric, etc.Pomegranate, pepper, cumin, dry ginger, dry mango, black salt, sugar, citric acid.Pomegranate, pepper, cumin, akarkara, dry ginger, dry mango, large cardamom, rose petals, salt, sugar, citric, etc.Pomegranate, pepper, cumin, akarkara, dry ginger, dry mango, large cardamom, ci...

L.G. Electronics India Ltd., Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC529

1. The above captioned appeals are directed against a common Order-in-Original. The main appellant is M/s L.G. Electronics India Ltd. against whom duty of Rs. 42,50,477 with an equal amount of penalty has been confirmed while against the other two appellants M/s Samtel Colour Ltd. and M/s L.G. Hotline CPT Ltd., penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each has been imposed.2. We have heard both sides. Duty has been confirmed against M/s. L.G.Electronics India Ltd. by denying them the modvat credit of various amounts as detailed in the impugned order itself. The credit of Rs. 14,52,466 has been denied on the ground that their suppliers of inputs M/s Samtel Colour Ltd. and M/s L.G. Hotline CPT Ltd. cleared the news PTs in the guise of defective CPTs without payment of duty. On this very allegation, the duty demand was earlier raised against M/s Samtel (India) Electronics and others, but the same was not accepted by the Tribunal and the demand was set aside as we find from the Tribunal's order in Samtel ...

Prasant Gupta and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ300CAT

1. As these O.As. are grounded on same set of facts and involving identical question of law, are being disposed of through this common order.2. In O. A. 1648/2003, applicant who was working as Commissioner of Income Tax, has assailed his supersession in the matter of promotion to the rank of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) in the wake of DPC held on 6.4.2003. He has sought direction to respondents to grant him promotion to the post of CCIT with effect from the date his juniors have been given by holding a review DPC and also to ignore downgraded and uncommunicated ACRs in the last five years.3. Likewise, in O.A. 2955/2003 denial of promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the DPC held on 6.4.2003 has been assailed. Direction for holding review DPC and to ignore uncommunicated and downgraded remarks in the ACRs for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 has been sought with grant of promotion to the post of CCIT with all consequential benefits.4. By an interim order d...

Shri Krishan Kumar Soni and anr. Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC100

1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.8.2003 permilting the respondent Bank to' exhibit certain documents. The learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT did not permit the appellants to file any document by way of evidence by his Order dated 9.5.2003, whereas the respondent Bank has now been permitted to exhibit documents. He also contends that even the original documents were not brought into evidence, though they were produced and taken away. He contends that the originals should have been placed on record by way of evidence.2. The appellants cannot object to the reception of the documents by way of evidence on the ground that the appellants' application for reception of documents by way of evidence was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. If the interest of justice required, then the evidence should be allowed to be placed on record, and there can be nothing wrong in permitting the documents to be p...