Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indore Rolling Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents are manufacturers of hot re-rolled products of non-alloys steel and had opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) on capacity of production determined under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Originally, the levy was proposed to be implemented from 1-8-97 but later on the effective date was shifted to 1-9-97. Due to this change, there was confusion about the duty rate applicable in case of goods manufactured and cleared during the month of August, 1997. Earlier Notification No.50/97 dated 1-8-97 was issued partially exempting the goods manufactured or produced prior to first day of August, 1997 and cleared on or after that date from an induction furnace unit or as the case may be, a hot re-rolling mill, but this notification was amended by Notification No. 57/97, dated 30-8-97 and the date 1-8-97 was substituted by a date 1-9-1997. Thus there was no exemption on products produced and cleared in August, 1997. Accordingly, a s...

Bisco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this application for rectification of typographical mistake in the stay order dated 3.6.2005. We find merit in the contention of the Revenue's application. Where it is mentioned, "another demand of Rs. 3,90,382/-" it should be read as "another demand of Rs. 3,90,3821/-." 2. The contention of the Revenue is that the pre-deposit of duty was waived as the seized goods are with the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue is that goods were handed-over to the appellants.3. The contention of the applicant is that the goods were only handed-over for safe custody on "Superdgi" and they have no control over the goods. Therefore, they cannot use the goods. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this contention of the Revenue. The ROM is rejected. The ROM is disposed of as above....

Smt. Sarju Devi and ors. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC84

1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur in appeal No. 17 of 2004 on October 7, 2004.2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for the first respondent-bank. According to Mr. B. S. Nagar, learned Counsel for the appellants, one Mr. Ram Manohar Natani, one of the directors of M/s. Divya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. who obtained loan from the respondent-bank herein, became defaulter, resulting in the institution of the OA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the respondent-bank.The suit has been decreed. While so, the respondent-bank decided to proceed under the Securitisation Act by serving notice under Section 13(2) on September 27, 2002, on the respondents and took further measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act for taking possession. It also filed an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act before the District Magistrate, Jaipur.3. However, the respondent-bank pursued execut...

Gomti Credits (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)1132

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 28th Feb., 2002 for asst. yr. 1998-99. First ground in the appeal is against treating the amount of Rs. 42,50,000 as business income.2. The assessee-company was a holder of 55,480 equity shares of Ghaghara Sugar Ltd. (GSL) which is a group concern of DGM Shree Ram Consolidated Ltd. (DCMSC). This holding constituted 21 per cent of the total share capital of GSL. These shares were acquired way back on 6th Dec., 1994 when GSL was in the process of setting up a sugar factory.Purportedly, the intention to acquire these shares was to participate in the management and control of GSL as the assessee was one of the promoters of GSL. On 15th April, 1997 i.e. during the year under consideration, the assessee entered into an agreement with GSL whereby the assessee agreed to transfer its entire shareholding in favour of DCMSC and their associates. The agreement, inter alia, provided that the assessee will not, f...

Ge Capital Transportation Vs. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)298

These three appeals, by two different assessees and one by the revenue are directed against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. As these appeals were heard together and also involve some common issues, these are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Del2001 G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Addl. CIT Asst.These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 25-1-2001 of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Common disputes raised in both these appeals are as under : (I) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding order of the assessing officer that gross discounting income on promissory notes and bills of exchange is chargeable to interest-tax instead of net of discounting charges. (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commiss...

Mrs. Asha Devi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)332

1. The appeal in IT(SS) 362/Del/04 for block period 1st April, 95 to 26th Feb., 2002 is against the order of CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dt. 22nd Sept., 2004, alleging that both the taxing authorities have erred in taking the amount of Rs. 2,48,453 as unexplained income of the assessee. The appeal in IT(SS) 153/Del/2005 is filed by the husband of the assessee for the same block period. It is pleaded that the taxing authorities have erred in making addition of Rs. 4,75,671 regarding alleged unexplained expenditure pertaining to jotting of letter of M/s Mulberry Silk Affairs (the paper found and seized during the search and seizure operation). It has further been pleaded that addition of Rs. 4,09,267 regarding jewellery was wrongly made, despite the fact that the family of the assessees was an affluent family.2. The facts are that a search and seizure operation was conducted on Deepsons Group, on 26th Feb., 2002. The assessee is connected with the said group. In response to notice under Sectio...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Ge Capital Transportation

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)304

1. The Revenue is in appeal for asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 whereas the assessee has filed cross-appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99. All these matters were heard together and are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.Interest-tax Appeal Nos. 38 and 39/Del/2001 (Revenue's appeal for asst.yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98): 2. Ground Nos. l(i) to l(iii), common in both the appeals are as under : 1(1). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that interest on securities amounting to Rs. 3.59 crores (Rs. 5.43 crores in asst. yr. 1997-98) is not chargeable under the IT Act. 1(11). Learned Departmental Representative-CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that CBDT vide its notification dt. 11th Sept., 1995 exempts banking company to which Banking Regulations Act, 1949 applies from the levy of interest-tax in respect of income from interest on securities. 1(iii). The learned Departmental Representative-CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that...

industrial Finance Corpn. of Vs. Joint/Additional Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD639(Delhi)

1. These four appeals comprised of three appeals filed by the assessee on 2-2-2000, 12-6-2001 and 28-3-2002 against the orders of the learned CIT (Ap-peals)-XXII, New Delhi, dated 30-11-1991 and 28-2-2001 and the order of the learned CIT (Appeals)-XIV New Delhi, dated 28-1-2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1996-97, assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for assessment year 1995-96 and assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1998-99. The fourth appeal ITA No. 3250(Del.)/2002 has been filed by the revenue on 12-8-2002 against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi, dated 23-5-2002 made under Section 154 for rectifying the order of his predecessor dated 30-11-1999 for assessment year 1996-97.2. The first ground in the assessee's appeal is general and covered by subsequent grounds of appeal. Ground of appeal No. 2 is that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirmi...

Shri Jai Prakash Goel Vs. Shri O.P. Goel and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT437; 2006(88)DRJ182

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as' the said Act') impugning the order dated 20.09.2004 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of is Nos. 9693/1999, 13292/2000, 12548/2000 and 5197/2004 in Test Case No. 10/1987 which is a petition filed by the appellant / petitioner for grant of probate in respect of an alleged will left by the father (Late Jugal Kishore Goel) of the appellant and the respondents. is No. 9693/1999 was an application under Order 32 Rules 3 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Respondent No. 3 (Shri Brahm Prakash Goel) on account of his mental infirmity and consequent inability to look after and protect his interest in the pending probate proceedings (i.e., Test Case No. 10/1987). I.A. 12548/2000 sought the same relief as is 9693/1999. By is 13292/2000, the said Shri ...

All India Young Lawyers Association (Regd) Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi a ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT29; 2006(87)DRJ704

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. All India Young Lawyers' Association (Registered) has filed this writ petition in public interest to espouse the cause of direct recruits to Delhi Higher Judicial service. The prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to the Govt. of National Capital Territory Delhi for adding the actual period of practice at the Bar subject to a maximum of 15 years while computing the pensionary and other retiral benefits of a direct recruit to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents including Govt. of National Capital Territory, Delhi. Pursuant thereto the Govt. of NCT Delhi has through a letter dated 2.2.2006 addressed to the Registrar General of this Court by the Secretary (Law, Justice and Legal Affairs) has partly conceded to the prayer of the petitioner by agreeing to give weightage of seven years of practice at the Bar while computing the pensionary and other retiral benefits of a direct re...