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.
Malout Cooperative Spg. Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC33
1. M/s. Malout Cooperative Spg. Mills Ltd., have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 572/03 dated 26.9.2003, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty on the basis of assessable value determined by the Deputy Commissioner.2. Shri S.K. Dhanda, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants were manufacturing man-made yarn on job work for M/s. Ganesh Polytex Ltd.; that the appellants had incurred huge losses and had gone into liquidation in 1998 before completing the job work given to them by M/s. Ganesh Polytex Ltd; that certain disputes arose between the appellants and M/s. Ganesh Polytex Ltd. regarding payment of job work on account of which they did not return the goods to M/s. Ganesh Polytex Ltd., who issued a legal notice to them; that due to dispute, the appellants did not take goods care of the good, which were allowed to remain in the open due to which they got spoiled due to the vagaries of weather; that afte...
Commercial Engg. Body Builders Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC343
1. Appellants herein were undertaking job work of fabrication of vehicle body on duty paid chassis supplied by M/s. TELCO. Duty demands were confirmed against them by adopting the price at which built up vehicles were sold by Telco from its Depots to customers and penalties were also imposed upon them. Hence, these appeals.2. Details of duties and penalties are set out in the Annexure to this order.3. We have heard both sides. Appellants rely upon Board's Circular No.251/85/96-CX dated 14.10.96 to support their contention that they are liable to pay duty on the basis of cost of manufacture plus notional profit and also upon Tribunal's decision in IPF Vikram India Ltd. 2003 (160) ELT 1017, wherein, applying the circular, it has been held that if an "independent job worker processes goods and returns this to their supplier, the prescription of other "places of removal" will not make any difference and for such goods the valuation can be done on the basis of price of comparable goods und...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saraswati Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC226
1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 was allowed in respect of the supporting structures of steel.2. The contention of the Revenue is that the supporting structure of steel is classifiable under chapter heading 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff and as per the definition of "capital goods" goods falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 7308 are excluded from the definition of capital goods. Therefore, to avail the benefit of Notification which provides exemption to capital goods, manufacture in the factory first the goods are to fall under definition of capital goods. The Revenue relied upon the respondent's own case [Saraswati Sugar Mills v. CCE, Delhi-III, 2003 (87) ECC 203 (Tri) : 2003 (56) RLT 639 where the Tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is not available in respect of steel platform Ladders, Juice sheeters and Pan which are c...
Aman Portfolio (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD324(Delhi)
1. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is whether the loss of Rs. 2,94,832 is a speculative loss as held by the IT authorities. The loss consists of two amounts : 2. Rs. 1,54,420 on account of reduction in the value of the stock of shares held on 31st March, 1997.2. The assessee is a sharebroker and also indulges in purchase and sale of shares on own account. The above two figures relate to the own trading. The AO invoked the Explanation below Section 73 and treated the loss as speculation loss and held that they cannot be set off against the non-speculation profit for the year and can be only carried forward to the subsequent years to be adjusted against the speculation profits for those years. The CIT(A) having confirmed the view taken by the AO, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.3. A pure legal argument was taken before me on behalf of the assessee based on the object for which Explanation below Section 73 was inserted. It was pointed out that t...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)589
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dt. 16th Oct. 2002, for the asst. yrs, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below and the details furnished in the paper book by the counsel for the assessee.3. These appeals are filed on common grounds against the common order of the CIT(A). The AO also passed the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act commonly in all the years. Therefore, we have heard all the matters together and dispose of the same by this common order.4. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the grounds of appeal taken in TDS Appeal No. 3/2003, which are as under : "1. That the appellate authority has erred in law and on merits of the case in holding that the assessee was a person liable to deduct tax at source. The order of learned CIT(A) wa...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Girish Sareen
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT359(Delhi)
Both the cross appeals are directed against the order of the CIT (A)-XV, New Delhi dated 2-6-1997 for the assessment year 1993-94.Both the appeals arise out of the same order of the CIT (A), therefore, both were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common order.We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below and the details submitted in the paper book filed by the counsel for the assessee.Before taking the grounds of appeal separately for the purpose of disposal of both the cross appeals, it would be necessary to mention certain facts, which are as under : The assessee is an Individual and member of Delhi Stock Exchange. He deals in purchase and sale of stocks and shares on its own behalf and on behalf of constituents. The assessee filed the return of income which was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of transactions sett...
ici India Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)589; 114(2004)DLT468; [2005]274ITR105(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. In the second round of litigation, the petitioner, formerly known as Indian Explosives Limited and now known as ICI (India) Limited, has approached this court as despite the direction given by a Division Bench of this court in its own case reported in : [1992]195ITR232(Delhi) , the Specified Authority under the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, particularly, in section 72A has made an order in utter disregard of the decision rendered by this court and also upon a complete non-application of mind. The short facts, as set out in : [1992]195ITR232(Delhi) are as under:'Briefly stated, the facts are that a company known as Alkali and Chemicals Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ACCI') was carrying on a business of manufacture and sale of polythene, rubber Chemicals, paints, etc. The said ACCI was incurring losses especially in the financial years 1980-81 and 1981-82. Both the companies, namely...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act Vs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT394; [2005(104)FLR673]; (2005)ILLJ453Del
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. An answer to a somewhat straightforward question of territorial jurisdiction in an industrial dispute has remained pending for almost fifteen years in this Court and about twenty years overall. While this is disturbing enough, a second round, relating to the merits of the dispute will now commence after the issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided. How long that will take for resolution is another question altogether. I think it is slowly, but surely, becoming critical for all of us to devise some strategy to deal with this mass of arrears so that such enormous delays become a thing of the past. 2. The Petitioner's grievance lies in a decision taken in an order dated 4th February, 1989 passed by Industrial Tribunal No.1, New Delhi in O.P. No.22 of 1984. In the impugned order, the learned Tribunal held that 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) was not mai...
Jugan K. Mehta Vs. S.S. Gulati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT340; 2004(77)DRJ271
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This contempt petition filed by the original plaintiff is based on the alleged violation of the ex parte order of status quo of this Court dated 2nd April, 2002 which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 25th August, 2003 passed after hearing both sides and which order is now pending in appeal before the Division Bench. The suit was inter alias for partition and averred that the two brothers of the plaintiff (who is the married sister) i.e. Defendant No. 1 Shri Sham Sunder Gulati, defendant No. 3 Shri Raj Kumar Gulati and defendant No. 4 Shri Chintu Gulati who are legal representatives of late Prakash Gulati, another brother of the plaintiff had sold the suit property at 31, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi to defendant No. 7- Smt. Neelam Sablok in violation of the plaintiff's rights. 2. It is claimed that the suit property has been demolished violating the order of status quo. The demolition is averred to be without any valid sanction and pe...
Brig. R.P. Singh Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT792; 2004(77)DRJ480
Gita Mital, J.1. In this writ petition the pertinent issue that falls for consideration is the authority and jurisdiction of the GOC 11 Corps, arrayed as respondent no.4 before us, to issue the order of dated 15th December, 2003 whereby he ordered reassembly of the General Court Martial and revision of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. We have not been called upon to adjudicate upon the merits of findings and sentence of the General Court Martial. thereforee, we are confining ourselves to the examination of the questions of law raised before us without in any manner opining or deciding any aspect relating to pleas on the merits of the charges, evidence, findings or sentence, both originally and upon revision, as were passed by the General Court Martial.2. The petitioner before us was commissioned into the Indian Army as a 2nd Lieutenant on 12th January, 1969 and rose to the rank of Brigadier. The petitioner was commanding the 35 Infantry Brigade in Delhi from 9th March, 1998 to 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »