Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 27 of about 331 results (0.018 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi Vs Honda Siel Power Products Ltd
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest YES ORDER1. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the question of law framed in both the appeals is identical and the circumstances are also virtually identical. The question of law that has been framed in these appeals is as under:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 and in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view at the relevant point of time?"2. ITA 1376/2009 relates to the assessment year 2001-02 and is directed against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunals order dated 12.09.2008 passed in ITA No.1675/Del/2006, which, in turn, arose from the order dated 07.03.2006 passed by the Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Mohinder Gupta Vs Sh. Subhash Mittal
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest NOORDER.1. This is a suit under Order XXXVII CPC filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.21,40,000/-.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a proprietor of M/s Gupta Trading Corporation situated at K-32/19, Palam Road, Matiala Village, Delhi-110059. It is alleged that the defendant is a proprietor of M/s Mittal & Co. and deals in business of supplying old empty bottles to various factories situated all over India. The plaintiff and the defendants were having the business transactions because of which the plaintiff had provided the credit facility to the defendant for purchasing the old empty bottles from the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.21,43,185/- against the various bills, the details of which are given in para 4 of the plaint. It is alleged that all these ...
Tag this Judgment!Chela Ram Chopra (Through Lrs) Vs Ramo Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No. 1.Legal heirs of one of the defendants in a suit for partition in respect of property no. J-369, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') had filed this appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree of partition passed in the suit by the Court of Additional District Judge holding the respondent no.1- plaintiff Smt. Ramo Devi and her husband's two brothers to be the owners of the suit property in equal shares.2. The suit for partition and separation of 1/3rd share in the suit property was filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff Smt. Ramo Devi against her two brothers-in-law (husband's brothers) Shri Chela Ram Chopra and Shri Shiv Kumar Chopra. It was claimed by Smt. Ramo Devi that the suit property was initially a Government built quarter and the same was allotte...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Gupta Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest Yes ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act') and it arises out of the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 385/Del/05 in respect of the block period 01.04.1990 to 18.01.2001. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:-1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation and as a consequence thereof the block assessment order under 158 BC(c) of the said Act was bad in law ?2. Whether, if the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is held to have been issued within time, the block assessment order dated 30.07.2004 was barred by limitation...
Tag this Judgment!Ex.Constable Harish Chander Vs Commissioner of Police
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable with the Delhi Police on 1.5.1989.2. On 16.5.2002 a charge memo was issued and served upon the petitioner alleging his being un authorizedly absent from duty for a period of 46 days 22 hours and 10 minutes. It was an indictment against the petitioner that neither he sent information before absenting from duty nor submitted any papers justifying the absence, as also that his past record shows that during 13 years of service he absented on 11 different occasions.3. Responding to the charge memo, the petitioner pointed out that his brother had sent a telegram informing the department that the petitioner was unwell. It was highlighted that the petitioner had suffered a fracture and had undertaken treatment from a government hospital; being Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Shekhar Singh (Contractor) Vs. C.C.E., Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. Stay Petition is allowed. Appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The original authority vide order dated 10.7.08 confirmed the demand of Rs.1,78,645/- along with interest and imposed an amount of penalty of Rs.1,78,645/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide stay order dated 7.1.2009 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/-. On failure of the same, Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 2.4.2009 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.89,000/- on 25.1.2010 towards service tax as per the order of the original authority dated 10.7.08. In view of the above, he seeks remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned DR has no objection. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-complianc...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Secur Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar :- In view of failure on the part of the appellants to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit the matter is adjourned to 9th of August 2010 to enable the appellants to satisfy as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance of the requirement regarding pre-deposit....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Shital International Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. Stay petition is allowed. The appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. There was a fire accident on 23rd June,2006 at the appellant s premises. Consequently, the appellant claimed remission of duty amounting to Rs.4,74,785/-. on the finished goods destroyed in fire. The same was rejected by the Commissioner and a communication to this effect was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Technical) vide letter dated 24.3.2009/25.3.2009. Against the said order of the Commissioner the appellant has come before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.1369/2009-SM(Br.) dated 15.10.09 in Central Excise Appeal No.1841/2009 set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Commissioner. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the matter is still to be decided by the Commissioner. 3. In the meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 4.4.2007 was issued proposing demand of duty on goods destroyed in f...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ralson Carbon Black Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar :- None present for the appellants. The learned DR present for the respondent. Records do not disclose compliance of the order relating to requirement of pre-deposit. In fact the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the amount required to be deposited was fixed as was volunteered by the appellants on the date of hearing of the stay application and out of the demand of Rs. 9,25,353/-, the appellants were directed to deposit only an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to enable the appellants to contest the appeal. Records nowhere disclose compliance of the said order. None has appeared for the appellants nor the amount has been deposited in spite of the fact that the appellants themselves had volunteered to deposit the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/. It is apparent the appellants do not appear to be interested in pursuing with the matter. Normally the Tribunal gives an opportunity to the appellants to satisfy the Tribunal as to why the appeal should not be dismissed i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur - I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar :- The learned advocate for the appellants has placed on record cause list of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court stating that the appeal filed against the order passed in Stay Application is fixed for hearing before the Hon’ble High Court today. In view thereof, at the request of the learned advocate for the appellants, the date for compliance report is extended to 9th of August 2010....
Tag this Judgment!