Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 71 results (0.019 seconds)Parasmal Solanki Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT704TriDel
1. This is an Application, which, along with three other identical Applications in as many Appeals [Appeal Nos. 367, 368 and 369 of 1985, apart from the instant Appeal], all heard together, purports to be one under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the Act).2. The prayer in the Application is "that the deposit of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- be stayed pending final disposal of the appeal", rather than one for dispensing with the mandatory requirement of a prior deposit in terms of Section 129E of the Act. Obviously, a stay of the mandatory requirement of a prior deposit is not what was contemplated in the aforesaid provision. There is no question of a stay of the deposit.Rather, it could be dispensed with. The prayer, as worded, would appear to have been designed to facilitate reliance upon the decisions of Courts relating, generally, to the grant of stay in appropriate cases, regardless of their applicability in the context of the statutory provisions in Section 129E of ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dates Discs Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT637TriDel
1 This matter relates to the respondent's refund claim under Exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-1976 (commonly known as incentive scheme for higher production). The Assistant Collector rejected the claim but the Appellate Collector allowed it. The Department has appealed before us against the Appellate Collector's order on the ground that the refund claim of the respondents was time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and was, therefore not admissible.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered their arguments as well as the record. We observe that in respect of the aforesaid notification, the Department prescribed a procedure sometimes in October, 1976 according to which an assessee could avail of the exemption only after he had submitted a declaration of his base year clearances in the specified form and the Assistant Collector had approved such declaration. It was not open to an assessee to avail of the exemption of his own. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!Santlal Kashmirilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Del)229; [1986]157ITR422(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The following question has been referred to us by common statement of case for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses in providing tea, coca cola and food to the customers of the assessed were the nature of entertainment expenditure and were, thereforee, disallowable under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessed in question is a firm engaged in the business of artiest in foodgrains. The business of the assessed is not very extensive. The total arhat receipts for the two years were Rs. 1,02,721 and Rs. 1,14,541, respectively. In the profit and loss account, the assessed claimed Rs. 13,791 in the first year and Rs. 19,979 in the second year as miscellaneous expenses. Out of these, the Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 10,000 in the first year and Rs. 13,791 in the second year as being expenses on cold drinks, ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shalimar Paints Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2409Tri(Delhi)
1. By his impugned Orders Nos. 747/Cal/84 dated 23-5-1985 and 53-54/Cal.II/84 dated 17-9-1984 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta allowed the appeals filed before him. The case of the Department was that the aluminium paste and the medium packed in a dual container at the time of clearance and marked and sold as Aluminium paint, should be treated as ready-mixed paint. Aluminium paste falls under Sub-item I(1)(i) and Varnish under Sub-item II(i) of item No. 14, Central . Excise Tariff Schedule (GET). The Assistant Collector held that the pack was ready-mixed paint falling under Sub-item I(3)(iii) of item 14 GET. The Collector (Appeals) set aside this order and held that the pack could not be treated as ready-mixed paint. The appeal before us is against this Order.2. The prayer in the appeal is that the impugned order be set aside and the Assistant Collector's order restored, i.e. the classification of the goods be declared to be under item 14-I(3)(iii) GET as ready-mixe...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD907(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved of the order, dated 9-1-1985 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee, the Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., 18, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi, is a limited company which is engaged in the manufacture of conductors and cables. The first ground relates to the change of the method of accounting, followed by the assessee in regard to the export incentive on deemed exports from mercantile to cash basis. The facts in that regard are as follows : As per the policy of the Government, (Ministry of Finance), export incentives and duty drawback are allowed on various items exported outside India and payment for which is received in convertible foreign exchange (US dollars or pounds sterling). The rates of such incentives are fixed from time to time on the basis of export/ import policy announced by the Government for each year. Such rates are announced by the Ministry of Finance. In case of supplies made in India against global tenders, successful Indian bidd...
Tag this Judgment!Anglo Dutch Paint, Colour and Varnish Works P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Del)210; [1986]157ITR615(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J. 1. A common statement of case has been submitted under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, regarding the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rectification of mistake in the assessments for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52, completed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be carried out under the provisions of section 155(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessed is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling paints and colours. In the assessment year 1949-50, a loss return was filed showing a loss of Rs. 24,018. The assessment was completed under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; most of the loss was allowed and adjustments were made regarding earlier losses which were being carried forward from earlier years and there was also some adjustm...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Del)115; [1986]158ITR174(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan J. 1. These references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment of Shri Sohan Singh for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70. The relevant previous years are the financial years 1962-63 to 1968-69. Two common questions on law have been referred for the opinion of this court. They arise out of the same set of facts. These references can, thereforee, be disposed of by a common order. 2. The assessments of Shri Sohan Singh for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70 were originally completed by taking into account his income by way of salary from two private limited companies, his income from dealing in shares and also his income by way of interest, the full details of which are not relevant for our present purposes. These assessments have since been reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and reassessments have been made by including in the total income of the above assessed, the income ostensibly earned by a firm kno...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Ii Vs. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Del)208; [1985]155ITR373(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These are four income-tax references. They arise out of the assessments of M/s. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. for the assessment years 1964-65, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The questions referred are common questions relating to all the three assessment years. There are, however, four references before us because there were cross-appeals before the Tribunal in relation to one of the assessment years by both the Department and the assessed. The common question that has been referred to this court reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the rent receipts from the members to whom the rooms were let out by the assesses-club along with other facilities were not assessable to income-tax on the doctrine of mutuality ?' 2. The undisputed facts are as follows : The assesses-club was formed in 1973, and was registered as a company limited by guarantee. The objects of the club were mainly to provide recreation ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamvir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT254
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This is an application for transfer of a Session's case now pending in the court of Sh. P S. Sharma to that of Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. Admittedly, a part of the evidence was originally recorded by Shri J.D. Kapur, the then Additional Sessions Judge, trying this case. Subsequently it was taken over by Shri K.B. Andley. He has examined as many as a dozen of prosecution witnesses which now stand concluded, and the accused has to be examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Due to transfer of Shri Andley, the case has been assigned to his successor Shri P.S. Sharma. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Shri Andley has already recorded almost the entire evidence, it would be in the interest of justice that he disposes of this case finally. The request seems to have considerable merit. Accordingly, this application is allowed and this case is transferred from the court of Shri P.S. Sharma t...
Tag this Judgment!Anglo Dutch Paint, Colour and Varnish Works P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)48CTR(Del)210; [1986]157ITR614(Delhi)
D. K. KAPUR J. - A common statement of case has been submitted under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, regarding the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rectification of mistake in the assessments for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52, completed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be carried out under the provisions of section 155(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessed is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling paints and colours. In the assessment year 1949-50, a loss return was filed showing a loss of Rs. 24,018. The assessment was completed under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; most of the loss was allowed and adjustments were made regarding earlier losses which were being carried forward from earlier years and there was also some adjustment r...
Tag this Judgment!