Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)53
1. Appeal in ITA No. 4545/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 20th Nov., 2000, against the order of the CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt.31st Aug., 2000, in the case of the assessee in relation to order of assessment under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1997-98. In response, the assessee has filed on 12th Sept., 2002, a cross-objection numbered as CO No. 135/Del/2002. Appeal in ITA No. 2239/Del/2002 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 23 May, 2002, against the order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 21st Feb., 2002, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr.1998-99.2. As the common facts and disputes are involved in these appeals and the cross-objection, the same were argued together by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.We are disposing them by this consolidated order for convenience.3. The main dispute in these appeals pertains to the deduction claimed by the assessee-compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000IVAD(Delhi)342; 86(2000)DLT246
ORDERS.N. Variava C.J.1. This Writ Petition arises out of an unfortunate incident which took place in Uphaar theatre in the evening of 13th June, 1997. A fire took place in which a number of people were killed and/or injured. All the Petitioners are those who were injured in the fire or relatives of those who were injured or killed in the fire. By this Writ Petition the Petitioners seek to highlight, what according to them are a shocking state of affairs. They claim that there is complete disregard of statutory obligations, prescribed under the law, for prevention of fire hazards in public places.2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that each and every public authority, not only failed in the discharge of its statutory obligations, but in fact acted in a manner which was hostile and foreign to the discharge of their public duties. The standards set under the statute and the rules framed for the purpose of preventing public hazards were observed only by their breach. license and permi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)645; 80(1999)DLT230
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the adverse remarks made by the High Court for the years 1994 and 1995 at one go and seeking promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The facts have to be stated in some detail in view of the circumstances under which the petitioner's case has been dealt with by the High Court. The petitioner joined Delhi Judicial Service on 28.1.1978. He was put on selection grade of Rs. 3700-5000 in June 1993 w.e.f. 31.5.1991 as he has been having good service record. The petitioner was assigned with the work of Addl. Rent Controller for the period from 22.3.1992 to 24.8.1995 by the High Court. By order dated 8.6.1993 the petitioner was entrusted financial powers by the learned District Judge. The order reads as under :- 'Whereas Shri J.B. Geol, Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Shri R.P. Malik, Drawing and Disbursing Officers of this office will not be available ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi267b; ILR1997Delhi22
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1749/92, 1631/92, the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991. 2. In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)333; 2(1997)CLT273; 67(1997)DLT145; 1997(42)DRJ131
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.(2) In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC61Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the stay application of the appellants was disposed of by this Tribunal's stay order No. E/351/93-B1, dated 29-10-1993. By this order, they were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of the order out of the adjudicated amount of Rs. 14,50,267.00. Being aggrieved [by] this order, the appellants had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Rajas-than. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan by their letter dated 10th Feb., 1994 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 421/94 has set aside the order and remitted the same with the direction "to hear the petitioner on the point of irreparable losses which the company may suffer on account of requirement of the depositing any amount. This contention may also be examined in the light of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the objects under which such restrictions have been made".2. As a consequence of the above order, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC315
On merits of the cases, these appeals relate to a common issue, viz., interpretation of Notification No. 116/69-CE dated 3.5.69, as amended and determination whether the product "Iso Benzacyl Forte" falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14-E, manufactured by M/s. Wander India Limited and by M/s. Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited on behalf of M/s. Wander India Limited, and the products (i) Reclor capsules, (ii) Resteclin capsules, (iii) Resteclin tablets, (iv) Resteclin I.M.Injection and (v) Steclin I.M. Injection manufactured by M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals were eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid notification, Hence, these four appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. There are other legal points which have been raised along with this main issue and the same are also dealt with and disposed of by this order.2. The facts of the case in Appeal No. ED/SB/1447/83-C are that M/s.Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited, Ahmedabad manufactured patent or proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)25ITD193(Delhi)
1. There being difference of opinion between Members on some of the points involved as per orders annexed, the Special Bench Tribunal order is as follows : 1. 80J Relief to be recomputed within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, i.e., all liabilities are to be deducted for the purpose of computing capital employed, which shall have the effect of the Revenue's appeal on the point being allowed and the assessee's rejected (Unanimous view)-Ground No. 1 in both the appeals. 2. Coming to Section 35B dispute on which both the parties were in appeal, the revenue is ('s claim to be) rejected whereas the assessee partly succeeds inasmuch as, in respect of packing material expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,08,653, directions have been given that Section 35B deduction should be allowed in respect of bifurcated expenses on wrappers. The directions are similar to the one given in the assessee's own case in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas153(Delhi); [1987(54)FLR261]; (1986)IILLJ354Del
H.L. Anand, J. 1. This petition article 226 of the Constitution by a former general manager of the U.K. branches of a nationalised bank, concurrently in-charge of its European operations, assails the purported termination of his service by the Bank on the ground of 'loss of confidence' in him, as a sequel to and as part of a shake up in the higher echelons of the Bank in the wake of the largest bankruptcy of an Asian business house in the U. K., and failure of certain other accounts, allegedly exposing the Bank to the risk of loss of millions of pounds, and raises some interesting, as indeed, difficult questions of law, in relation to service in public sector, as indeed, interaction between the principles of industrial jurisprudence and administrative law following recent constitutional developments in the treatment of public sector undertaking as instrumentalities of the State under article 12 of the Constitution. Some of the questions that the petition raises are perhaps not appropri...
Tag this Judgment!