Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 25 of about 273 results (0.019 seconds)Narender JaIn Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi278; III(2005)BC82; 118(2005)DLT434; 2005(81)DRJ218
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, assailing the orders dated 17th December, 2004 and 19th January, 2005 in case bearing No.112/203, titled Union Bank of India v. A.I. International, passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act. Further, direction is sought for restraining respondent No.1 from interfering with possession of property bearing NO.R-29, Inderpuri, New Delhi. 2. Petitioner claims to have entered into an Agreement to Purchase the property vide an Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 22nd May, 1998, from respondent No.2, Sh. Jagdeep Singh Sahni for a sum of Rs.81 lacs. Petitioner claims to have paid on varying dates a total sum of Rs.75 lacs. Petitioner received possession of the property on 7th July, 1998. 3. Respondent No.1 Union Bank of India had filed an application under Section 14 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Tejpal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT54; 2005(81)DRJ549
Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the order dated 8th September, 2004 whereby the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110088 notified the petitioner of cancellation of the admission of her son Vaibhav Tejpal under the special dispensation quota of the Ministry of Human Resources Development on the allegations that the list of names whereby admission was granted had been forged by her. 2. The challenge made in this petition is based on the averment that the petitioner had registered her son Vaibhav Tejpal, then aged five and a half years for admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, T P Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi by submission of an admission form for the purposes of securing admission in class 1 in the school. According to the petitioner she made enquiries from the various lists notified for admission and kept on enquiring about the status and stage of admission of her son. Finally, on 30th July, 2004, the petitioner was told that a list of 110 students h...
Tag this Judgment!Azra Sultana Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT115
ORDERBadar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by an order dated 15.1.2004, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh which she had done. She was also directed to join investigation as and when required by the IO which also she has complied with. The learned Counselor the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Shakil Akhtar was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 10.3.2004. Accordingly, on the ground of parity, he submits that the present petitioner also be granted anticipatory bail.2. The learned Counsel for the State, who appears in this matter, stated that it is a fact that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and that she joined investigation. It is also confirmed that the co-accused Shakil Akhtar was granted benefit of pre-arrest bail by this Court on 10.3.2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner is also directed to be released on bail, in the event of her arrest, on furnishing a personal bond in th...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Modern Spinners Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN741(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is to the interpretation and meaning of the expression 'ascertained liability' in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. The assessed filed a return for the assessment year 1995-96 on 24-11-1995 declaring a loss of Rs. 57,99,781. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without making any adjustment. The assessing officer issued a notice to the assessed under sections 143(2) and 142(1) Along with a questionnaire on 26-9-1996 and the case was taken up for scrutiny. While dealing with some other matters in the order of the assessment, the assessing officer specifically required the assessed to show cause why provisions of interest of Rs. 49.23 lakhs should not be disallowed as the provisions amounted to unascertained liability. After granting opportunity to the assessed, the deduction for the said amount of interest was ...
Tag this Judgment!Tea Consultancy and Plantation Services (India) (P) Ltd Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN604(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J. A simple but an interesting question of law arising in the present writ petition is to the meaning of the expression made' appearing in proviso to section 8OMM of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Nilhat House, 11, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, and is carrying on its business of providing technical services in connection with the plantation and manufacture of tea. For this purpose, it had entered into various agreements for acquiring technical know how and consultancy with other persons as well. The fee is payable to the petitioner in lieu of those services and normal tenure of the agreement is usually one year; amount payable in quarterly Installments. During the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79 an income of Rs. 5,42,365 accrued from the technical know-how provided by the petitioner to others. In this regard, 16 agreements had been enter...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Rajan and Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN271(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J. On 30-11-1990 the assessed filed a return showing an income of Rs. 2,29,280 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 2,29,960 during the period of assessment. Notice under sections 143(2) and 140(2)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the assessed in response to which the partner of the assessed attended and produced the books of account. Besides that, the assessing officer added back profit on the undisclosed sales of Rs. 28,195. It was also detected during a survey under section 133A at the assessed's premises on 25-9-1992 that certain loose slips showing sale to different parties and pertaining to the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Thereupon, the assessed surrendered the amount in the assessment years to the tune of Rs. 38.37 lakhs. Finally, besides making certain additions in the account of the assessed, the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 3,20,868 to the total income of the assessed while observing as und...
Tag this Judgment!Mastushita Tv. and Audio India Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC558
2. The appellant filed this appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby Modvat credit on defective colour picture tubes which were sent to the manufacturer for repair was denied. The demand was also confirmed in respect of the valuation of the Television sold by M/s National Panasonic of India by taking into consideration the price in other States as the M/s National Panasonic were selling the televisions in UP at lower price as goods were under exemption from Sales Tax.3. The appellant also challenged the denial of benefit of Modvat credit taken on four cabinet moulds. In respect of other demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority the appellants were not challenged these demands. The only contention of the appellant is that since the duty in respect of these demands was paid even prior to show-cause notice therefore, the penalty equal to the amount of duty confirmed is not sustainable.4. In respect of Modvat credit on defective colour p...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Thread Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT364TriDel
1. The appellant is a small unit engaged in the dyeing of yarn. It had been in operation for several years when dyeing activity became liable to excise duty on 28-2-99. It is being submitted that because the appellant was not aware of the imposition of duty on the process of dyeing, it did not pay duty on the production even after 28-2-99. On 28-5-99, Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's unit and found that the appellant was carrying on dyeing process and clearing the yarn without payment of excise duty. The visiting officer also seized the stock of dyed yarn in the appellant's stock (valued at Rs. 3,21,600/-).In June 1999, the appellant remitted Central Excise duty amounting Rs. 1,15,000/-. It is being pointed out that visiting excise officers had informed the appellant that this was the duty due from the appellant in respect of yarn manufactured and cleared between 28-2-99 and 28-5-99.2. In September 1999, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant pointing out that ...
Tag this Judgment!Century Denim Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT330TriDel
2. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13.01 Crores. The brief facts of the case are that applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Cotton fabrics and is of 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The applicants were claiming the benefit of Notification 8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 which exempts finished products, rejects and waste and scrap which is produced or manufactured of 100% EOU wholly from the raw-material produced or manufactured in India and allowed to be sold in India. Applicants are using Indigo Pure for coloring the Cotton yarn and fabrics sold in DTA. Indigo Pure was not being procured indigenously by the applicants but were being imported.The benefit of notification was denied; on the ground that as imported Indigo Pure Dye is being used by the applicants, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997.3. In earlier proceedings, the Tribunal in their own case as well in the case of Maral Overseas...
Tag this Judgment!Colts Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT289TriDel
1. As the issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Colts Auto Ltd. is in narrow compass, we stay the recovery of the entire amount of Modvat credit disallowed to them and penalty imposed on them. We heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, for the appellants and Shri Vipin Verma, learned JDR for the Revenue.2. The appellants are manufacturing motor vehicle parts and are availing of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs. They shifted their workshop and entire business from Sector IV in Faridabad to Sector VI in Faridabad. Due intimation of shifting was given to the Jurisdictional Superintendent. The Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs had been disallowed to them on the ground that they had not filed fresh declaration after shifting their factory premises to Sector VI, Faridabad. The Modvat credit is not disallowable for this reason in view of the amendment carried out in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by Notification No. 7/99, dated 9-12-1999 and Board's Circula...
Tag this Judgment!