Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 1 of about 150 results (0.020 seconds)Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT433TriDel
1. When case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. The appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellant.2. Heard the learned DR. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut whereby penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules.3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. BHEL cleared the goods by availing the exemption under Notification No. 108/95, dated 28-8-95 without payment of duty to the appellants. Show cause notice was issued to M/s. BHEL for payment of duty and for imposition of penalty on the ground that goods cleared by M/s. BHEL in question were not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 108/95. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand on M/s. BHEL and also imposed penalty on M/s. BHEL and the appellant as well. Appeal filed by M/s. BHEL came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 360/03-B, dated 23-4-2003 held that...
Tag this Judgment!Him Ispat Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors..
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)BC207
1. The appellants are defendants in O. A. No. 655 of 2002 filed by the respondent-financial institution seeking to recover more than Rs. 70 crores. The O. A. proceedings are in progress. However, this respondent-financial institution filed Miscellaneous Application No.3275 of 2003 seeking certain directions from the Tribunal. The said application came to be considered by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, on the basis of submissions made by both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, by order dated December 12, 2003, directed the appellants herein to hand over within 15 days the leased assets as detailed in the lease agreement to the respondent-financial institution herein. Against this order the present appeal is filed.2. Mr. B. S. Nagar, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants mainly contended that the provisions appearing under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the Act"), do not empower the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Lumax Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)282ITR180(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 22/10/2001 and the solitary issue which arises for our consideration out of the same is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest Under Section 234B & 234C on the income computed Under Section 115JA on the basis of book profit while processing the return Under Section 143(1)(a).2. The assessee in the present case is a limited company. A return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it showing a total income of Rs. 1,25,82,140/- being 30% of its book profit in accordance with the provisions of Section 115JA and a self assessment tax of Rs. 42,14,312/- was also paid on such income after claiming adjustment for TDS amounting to Rs. 1,89,437/-. The income so declared was accepted by the Assessing Officer while processing the return filed by the assessee Under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Royal Jordanians Airlines
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)283ITR28(Delhi)
1. These four appeals pertain to asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2000-2001. Appeal in ITA No. 5252/Del/1998 is Revenue's appeal filed on 3rd Nov., 1998 against the order of the learned CIT(A) XVI, New Delhi dt. 4th Aug., 1998 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1995-96. Appeal in ITA No. 3805/Del/1999 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 24th Sept., 1999 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dt.4th June, 1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1994-95. Appeal in ITA No.1786/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 10th April, 2000 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 17th Jan., 2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97, and the appeal in ITA No.4670/Del/2003 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 14th Oct., 2003 against the order of the learned CIT...
Tag this Judgment!Vls Finance Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Spl. Range-10
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)5SOT362(Delhi)
As certain common facts are involved in these three appeals the same were argued together by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned departmental Representative We are deciding these appeals by this common order for convenience. Appeal in ITA Nos. 1754 and 1755 are the appeals filed by the assessee on 4-4-2001 against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 28-2-2001 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Appeal in ITA No. 1948 is the appeal filed by revenue on 14-5-2001 for assessment year 1997-98. The common point involved in these three appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on certain assets under hire-purchase.Facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly are that the assessee-company was engaged in these years in the business of leasing and other related financial activities. For assessment year 1995-96, the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Sarb Consulate Marine Products Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)290ITR128(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-10, New Delhi (Assessing Officer) dated 30/9/98 passed Under Section 158BC for the block period.2. The assessee in the present case is a company registered with Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, New Delhi on 30^th December, 1992 with the main object of harvesting fish from open seas. A search operation Under Section 132 was initiated in this case on 6/11/96 which was temporarily concluded on the same date to be recommenced subsequently. During the course of the search operation, fishing vessels/trawlers of the assessee company viz. Arats, Aries and Vega were searched and sealed. An order Under Section 132(3) was also passed in respect of the said fishing trawlers which was served on Capt. V.S.Gopinath, Deputy Conservator of Port Trust, Margaon, Goa. This restraint order Under Section 132(3) was subsequently stated to be lifted and the search was claimed to have...
Tag this Judgment!Hori Lal S/O Ganga Ram Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT506; 2005(84)DRJ81
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The appellant-Hori Lal by this appeal assails his conviction under Sections 376 and 342 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, SI for one month under Section 376 IPC and sentence of three months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, SI for 15 days under Section 342 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 24th July, 1996 at about 9 P.M, appellant-Hori Lal had enticed the prosecutrix aged 6-7 years, who lived in the house opposite to the appellant on the pretext of giving her some sweets and raped her. The mother of the prosecutrix i.e. Raj Bala and her brother on hearing her cries, rushed to the house of the appellant, opened the door and found the appellant in the act, who rushed out putting his trousers on. Rajbala rushed prosecutrix to the LNJP Hospital. The hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be ruptured and the vaginal tear was repaired under general anesthesia. The MLC recorded that initially the prosecutrix did not r...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Kumar Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4399; 123(2005)DLT487; 2005(84)DRJ84
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant-Subhash Kumar by this appeal assails his conviction vide judgment dated 14th October, 2000 under Section 304(1) IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 16th October, 2000, sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, RI for three months. Appellant was also sentenced to RI for six months under Section 27 of the Arms Act, with both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Antony Joseph, was a tenant in a room situated at first floor of house no.122, Village Karkardooma. Appellant-Subhash Kumar was his neighbour residing on the first floor of house no.56. On 16th September, 1998, both of them started quarreling and hurling abuses at each other. After verbal exchange from their respective balconies, quarrel was taken to the street. It is alleged that deceased-Anthony Joseph gave a fist blow on the nose of appellant and blood sta...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Harmohan Singh S/O. Shri Tirath Singh Trading as Guaranteed Parts ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ368; 2006(32)PTC393(Del)
Anil Kumar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts and delivery of offending goods for destruction.2. Plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction etc. contending inter alias that he is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Guaranteed Parts Manufacturing Company. He manufacturers and markets pipes and hoses for use in automobiles.3. The plaintiff and defendant are real brothers who had been carrying on business of manufacturing motor parts, tractor parts, engine parts, machinery parts for use in automobiles in partnership under the name and style of M/s Guaranteed Parts Manufacturing Company at J-11/31, Rajouri Garden New Delhi under a partnership deed dated 20th September 1984. The partnership business acquired the trademark 'on 1st April 1985 in respect of pipes during the course of business. An application for registration of the trademark was filed by the partnership business. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajender Solanki Vs. Banso Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi24; 124(2005)DLT409; 2005(84)DRJ353
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) is filed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 24th February, 2001 allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 15th December, 1999 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 144, Order 21 and Rule 97 CPC, in the execution proceedings. 2. The learned Trial Judge had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 144, Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The appeal filed by the respondent Banso Devi was allowed by the learned senior Civil Judge leading to the present revision petition. The relevant facts of the case are as under:-(a) The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent on the allegation that he was tenant in flat No. 203-A, W.P. Block, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and was sought to be dispossessed by the respondent forcibly and without due pro...
Tag this Judgment!