Delhi Court June 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Janta Wine Store Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD348(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 3-12-1983 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), whereby he confirmed the imposition of penalty against the assessee in the sum of Rs. 1,24,721 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a registered firm which carries on the business of 'Indian Made Foreign Liquor' (IMFL). The partners of the assessee-firrn are S/Shri Pramod Kumar, Ajeet Kumar, Bharat Kumar, Ashok Kumar Ahlawat, Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Jitendra Prakash and Bipendra Kumar Goel.For the assessment year 1978-79 in question, the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 1,70,421. The disclosed sales were of Rs. 7,48,654.However, assessment was completed by the ITO after applying the proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act. He estimated the sales at Rs. 9 lakhs and by estimating the net profit rate at 5 per cent, he completed the assessment on an income of Rs. 45,000. The assessment was completed after obtaining the directions of the IAC under Sec...
inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. Subodho ChandrA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD922(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri B. Gupta, Accountant Member - The respondent an employee of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., had received during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 house rent allowance of Rs. 4,800 from its employer company. It had been claimed before the assessing authority that the house rent allowance was exempt under provisions of section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with rule 2A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules). The assessing authority denied the exemption as according to him the assessed was residing in his own property and as no expenditure had been actually incurred by him on payment of rent in respect of his residential accommodation. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the IAC (Appeals) the assessed appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that in spite of the fact that he resided in his self-owned property and did not actually incur any expenditure by way of rent on it, he was entitled to deduction ...
Hoist-o-mech Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT442TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 6th September, 1981 directed against Order No. V-2 (30) 1447/78/4072 dated 2-5-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay has been transferred to the Tribunal by the Government of India, for disposal as an appeal in terms of Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The appellants manufacture Hoists and Cranes. They also manufacture Micro Speed Attachments which are supplied to customers only when ordered. Micro speed attachment consists of an electric motor and a gear box. It is stated that these are not integral parts but are simply coupled together so that the electric motor can be used along with the hoist for which it is ordered. The fact that the motor and gear box are bolted, does not bring them under Item 30. On 29th September, 1977, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause under Rule 10A in respect of the period 18th March, 76 to 31st October, 77 for a short levy/nonlevy of Rs. 15,936.12...
Mrs. Sudershan Sondhi Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD298(Delhi)
1. These cross-appeals arise out of the order dated 1-1-1983 of the learned AAC.2. For the assessment year 1975-76, in question, the due date for filing the wealth-tax return was 30-6-1975, but it was filed by the assessee only on 3-3-1979 after a delay of 44 months. Therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated by the WTO, against the assessee under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). In the explanation dated 12-11-1982, the assessee stated that the return could not be filed due to the illness of her elder daughter, Kumari Shalini Sondhi, who was suffering from 'Lymphoblastic Leukemia' since 1973. She was initially admitted in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and since there was no treatment in the country, she was treated at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, from 6-9-1973 till the end of December 1973. Thereafter, she was looked after by the AIIMS, New Delhi. She had a relapse in the beginning of June 1975 which necessitated her ...
Shriram Fibres Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT425TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Govt. of India (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962) against the Order-in-appeal No. C3/1701/1980 dated 30-5-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Nylon Tyre Yarn/Cord/Warp. In the manufacture of this product, they use caprolactum, an organic chemical falling under sub-heading No. (20) of Heading No. 29.01/45 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.3. Prior to 4th December, 1979, caprolactum was chargeable to countervailing duty (equivalent to the excise duty) at 25% ad valorem under Notification No. 61/75C.E. dated 16-3-1976 instead of the Tariff rate of 50% under Tariff Item 14AA of the Central Excise Tariff. This notification was later superseded by Notification No. 305/79-C.E. dated 4th Dec. 1979, under which the effective rate of duty on caprolactum manufactured from duty paid B...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC651Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Limited (hereinafter called the respondents) are the manufacturers of Toilet Soaps under their brand names "Kalpa" and "Oasis". Regarding their product 'Kalpa' the respondents filed classification list No. 46/82 operative from 25-6-1982 in Form I under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 classifying the same under sub-Item (1) of Tariff Item No. 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, chargeable to Central Excise duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem under Notification No.170/79-C.E., dated 24-4-1979' (as amended).2. Regarding their product 'Oasis', they filed classification list No.9/81 in Form I under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 effective from 1-1-1982 classifying this product under sub-item (1) of Tariff Item No. 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Excise duty payable under the said classification list was shown as 5% ad valorem under Notification N...
Tata Finlay Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT423TriDel
1. By letter No. 23/30/20/01 dated 4-9-1981, M/s. lata Finlay Limited have appealed against the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Madras's rejection of their appeal by his order No. 69/81 dated 22-4-1981. This order arose from the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam II Division C. No. V/3/18/66/79 dated 16-8-1980 in which he rejected two refund claims by M/s. Tata Finlay for Rs. 59,455.23 and Rs. 26,256.29 as he held that they were inadmissible under Rule 173M, Sub-rule (2) (iii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. M/s. Tata Finlay Limited claimed the refund because some package tea, which had been brought for export out of India, could not be shipped and was brought back to the factory and was repacked into loose tea. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims for reasons we have recorded. He also reasoned that the word "class" used in Rule 173M (2)(iii) directed distinction and loose tea is recognised commercially in the market as distinct from packag...
Sesa Goa Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT421TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed asa Revision Application before the Central Government which, in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. In response to the notice of hearing, the appellants sent a letter dated26th May, 1984 stating that they would not been deputing their representativefor the hearing and requesting the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits.On 11th June, 1984, when the case was called out, Shri Rakesh Bhatia, SDR,sought sometime to study the papers. We agreed and adjourned the hearing to 12th June, 1984. On 12th June, 1984, the Department has remained un-represented in not only this case but all the cases heard that day. There is no request from the Department for adjournment either. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of the material and submissions on record.3. The appellants imported at Bombay in 1979 a consi...
Shelley Products Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD136(Delhi)
1 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. As regards ground Nos. 2 and 3, the narration in the assessment order dated 23-8-1980 made by the ITO, Indore, in his file GIR. No.S-18-010-FX-0307, reads as under : Earlier the case was under the jurisdiction of the ITO, B-Ward, Bhopal, who had examined the case. As the variation between the returned income and the assessed income was more than Rs. 1 lakh, he forwarded the draft order dated 25-2-1980 to the assessee on 26-2-1980, in view of the provisions of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act. The assessee filed objection to the said proposed additions and, therefore, the ITO, B-Ward, Bhopal, referred the case to the IAC, Bhopal Range, Bhopal. Subsequently, the jurisdiction over the case was transferred by the Commissioner, MP-I, Bhopal, to the ITO (Sic.) I, Indore vide its notification No. 55/IT/MP-I/80 dated 9-7-1980. Consequently, the IAC, Bhopal Range, Bhopal, also forwarded the draft order along with ...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT402TriDel
1. The short point involved in these two appeals is whether extruded graphite rounds imported by the appellants fall under Heading 38.01/19(4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as urged by them, or under heading 68.01/16 of the CTA, as held by the lower authorities. Heading 38.01/19(4) relates to "artificial graphite". The relevant portion of heading 68.01/16 reads as "articles of other mineral substances, not elsewhere specified or included".2. The appellants, in reply to a query from the Bench, stated that they were no longer asking for classification of their subject goods under heading 25.01/32 (7) since the goods were rounds of artificial graphite while heading 25.01/32 (7) related to graphite, natural. Their grievance was that the Custom House and later on both the lower authorities proceeded on the assumption that they had imported graphite moulds. The appellants stated categorically that they imported only rounds and not moulds and that they were manufacturing moulds themselves...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »