Delhi Court September 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.
Deepak Ghanshyamdas Achhada Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC274
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudicating authority passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby penalty of Rs. 50,000 is imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants made import of watches from M/s. Global Trading Corporation of China. On arrival of the goods the appellants were asked to submit the documents in respect of the imported goods. The appellants filed letter dated 5.3.2002 submitted the documents like Airway Bill, Cargo Delivery Order, Cargo Arrival Notice and Receipt of Air India etc, As per the information submitted by the appellants, the goods were invoiced as assorted wrist watches whereas the brand name like Radio (sic), Omega and Citizen were found in the consignment. The goods were confiscated by the Adjudicating Authority and penalty was imposed on the ground of mis-declaration.3. The contention of the appellants is that they had not filed any Bill of Entry and they abundened (sic) [abandoned] the g...
Nafab India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD343(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal before us against the order of the Id. CIT(A) dated 28.2.2001 assessment year 1997-98. The only issue in this appeal relates to the applicability of the proper rate of tax to the income of the assessee.2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of fabrics. Total income declared by the assessee for the year under consideration was Rs. 45,200/- which included capital gains earned on sale of land and building. Total income computed as per the provisions of the Act amounted to Rs. 74,884/-. Since this was less than 30% of the book profits shown by the assessee, the assessee's income was computed under Section 115-JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The book profit as per profit and loss account was Rs. 2,54,491/- and 30% thereof being Rs. 88,347/-, the same was taken as the total income of the assessee for the year. Tax was levied at 40% on Rs. 88,350/- and the demand was accordingly raised.3. The assessee made an applicat...
Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Manager (North) Azadp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT86; 2004(77)DRJ105; [2005(104)FLR46]; (2005)ILLJ670Del
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26th February, 2003 passed by Industrial Tribunal-II in O.P. 389/93, which was an approval application filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). 2. The Respondent workman was a driver with the Petitioner. The allegation against him was that from 1st April, 1991 to 31st December, 1991, he was absent for 183 days. One Asha Rani submitted a report on 23rd March, 1992 in this regard. 3. On the basis of Asha Rani's report, a charge sheet dated 14th July, 1992 was issued to the Respondent workman. It was alleged that he had misconducted himself within the meaning of paragraph 19(f), (h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the employees of the Petitioner. These provisions read as follows:- 19. GENERAL PROVISIONS: Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing Standing Orders, the following acts of commission and omission ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Junach (P). Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)414; 114(2004)DLT227; 2004(77)DRJ196; [2005]274ITR168(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the revenue, pertains to the assessment year 1983-84. The question that has been referred for the determination of this court is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct on facts and in law in directing that the weighted deduction u/s 35-B may be allowed to the assessed in respect of the sum of Rs.6,99,489/- incurred under the head export consultancy charges?' 2. Section 35-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relates to Export Markets Development Allowances and by virtue of the provisions of this section, inter alia, any expenditure referred to in clause (b) of Section 35-B(1) is to be allowed as a deduction to the extent of the sum equal to one and one-third times of the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35-B details the expenditures referred to for which a deduction can be claimed. We are concerned with sub-cl...
Star Residents Society (Regd.) and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ599
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. While reserving for judgment, on 16.8.2004, following order was passed:-'Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.Counsel appearing for the DDA clarified that he has obtained instructions from DDA. His instructions are that the original lay out of the colony Rajouri Garden was approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. DDA is not in possession of any approved lay out plan of the said colony. MCD has taken a stand that the approved lay out plan was with the DDA. Matter has accordingly been argued by the parties treating the lay out plan filed by the petitioner being Annexure 'C' to the writ petition as the original lay out plan of the colony.'2. Prayer made in the writ petition is as under:-'a. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to remove all encroachments from the park and to direct respondents nos. 1 to 3 not to permit/allow the construction of any community centre or any other construction at ...
NaIn Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ157
B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellant wants retrospective promotion on the post of Accounts Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500 from 2.1.1990 - the date he claims to have become eligible for this promotion. For this, he had filed CWP No. 3635/94 praying for a review DPC to be held to consider his case for retrospective promotion which stands dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2002 giving rise to this appeal.2. Petitioner initially joined the services of the Board as Accounts Assistant on 24.9.1981. He was later promoted as Junior Accounts Officer on 26.7.1985 and then as Assistant Accounts Officer on 2.1.1987. His next promotional post was Accounts Officer. There was only one post of Accounts Officer under the recruitment rules of 1980 which was occupied and which was to be filled up 100% by promotion failing which by a transfer on deputation and failing which by direct recruitment. The rules of 1980 were then sought to be amended/revised by the rules of 1986 under which the eligibility prescri...
Subhash Chander Ahuja (Shri) and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Ahuja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT125
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff has prayed that four instruments, being two Gift Deeds and two Relinquishment Deeds, all dated 27th February, 2002 be declared void and cancelled and be delivered to the Plaintiffs; and for the issuing of a Perpetual Injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from dealing in any manner with the properties covered by these four Deeds. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 1 are real brothers and the aforementioned Deeds have the effect of conveying/transferring properties by these Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 1 The Plaint has been filed on 16th October, 2003, almost twenty months after the execution of these documents.2. Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 has strongly contended that there are various inconsistencies, of great import, in the sequence of events narrated in the Plaint and in documents, and in the arguments put forward on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Broadly stated the Plaintiffs' narration of events is that whist all four documen...
R.K. JaIn and Sons Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)659; [2005]142TAXMAN445(Delhi)
ORDERThis writ petition was originally filed as the refund of the excess Advance Tax was made to the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the refund was made along with interest thereon. There is no dispute with regard to that. The only dispute which survives is that of interest on interest.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though as per the statute there is no provision for payment of interest on interest, however, the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Narendra Doshi : [2002]254ITR606(SC) awarded interest on interest and has accepted the principle laid down in the decision of the Gujarat High Court in D.J. Works v. Dy. CIT : [1992]195ITR227(Guj) which was subsequently followed by the Gujarat High Court in Chimanlal S. Patel v. CIT : [1994]210ITR419(Guj) . The latter decision of the Gujarat High Court has considered the very provisions which are in question in the present writ petition.3. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, we feel t...
Shiplachem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT360TriDel
1. These are two appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal No.541-542/03 dated 25-9-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). One appeal has been filed by M/s. Shiplachem whereas the 2nd appeal has been filed by the Revenue.2. We heard Shri S.J. Vyas, learned Advocate and Smt. K.A. Mishra, learned S.D.R. Briefly stated, the facts are that M/s. Shiplachem manufacture P or P Ayurvedic Medicines which are sold by them through M/s. Shiplachem Distributors which is owned by Shri T.S. Bhandari.There was one more unit in name and style of M/s. Herbal Formulations manufacturing Ayurvedic Medicaments, A show cause notice was issued for demanding Central Excise duty on the ground of undervaluation of the goods and clubbing the clearance of M/s. Herbal Formulations. The Joint Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 18/01, dated 21-8-2001, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on M/s. Shiplachem besides imposing the penalty on Shri T.S. Bhandari, Manager and Power of Attorney holde...
Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC465Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this Miscellaneous Application for extension of stay. As we are taking up the appeal, therefore, there is no need to pass any order in respect of miscellaneous application 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that call charge indicators (STD/PCO monitor) are classifiable under heading 8470 of Central Excise Tariff.3. The contention of the appellants is that in this case the dispute in respect of classification is for the period 1.12.1997 to 25.5.1998 and during this period the Board issued a Circular dated 24.1.1994 to the effect that call charge indicators are classifiable under heading 9029.00 of Central Excise Tariff. This Circular was withdrawn by another Circular dated 5.4.1999 whereby it was clarified that call charge indicators are under heading 84.70 of Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the appellant is that during the period in dispute as per the Boar...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »