Delhi Court October 1986 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.
Ebenezer Rubbers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC407Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter the facts which survive for our consideration are that when the Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory on 5th October, 1979, they found that the manufacturer was concurrently preparing and issuing two sets of invoices for his goods, some handwritten and some typed. Some of the invoices in one set were in disagreement with corresponding ones of the other set in respect of identity of buyers, quantity and value of the goods etc. It was observed that the total value of clearances of the goods during the period in question amounted to Rs. 4.95 lakhs, so far as the accountal in the excise record went. However, it appeared that the appellants had also manufactured and separately cleared goods of a further value of Rs. 1.60 lakhs during the same period. The total production, therefore, valued over Rs. 5 lakhs disentitling the appellants from exemption from duty being availed of by them under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-78, which was admissible only to ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mohan MeakIn Breweries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD179(Delhi)
[1 to 3. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals)IX, New Delhi was not justified in reducing the disallowance of Rs. 5,43,804 made by the ITO under the head 'Rest house expenses' by Rs. 27,834 plus Rs. 61,795 (total Rs. 89,609) on account of depreciation and repairs to buildings respectively.The contention of the learned departmental representative was that since under Section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), no expenditure whatsoever incurred by the assessee on the maintenance of a guest house can be allowed, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in allowing the expenditure on account of repairs and depreciation.5. The assessee was maintaining a guest house on which the total expenditure amounted to Rs. 5,54, 804 out of which Rs. 27,814 represented depreciation on buildings and furniture and fittings and a sum of Rs. 61,795 represented repairs. According to th...
Uday Kaushish Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT181; 1987(12)DRJ167; 1987RLR73
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This writ petition undirected against the two Notifications dated 12/2/1986. The first Notification is under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereas the second Notification is under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring the land in dispute.(2) Today the matter was at the show cause stags. However with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the same is being deposed of.(3) The pertinent fact of the case is that both the Notifications are of the same date. (4) The validity of the Notifications has been inter alias challenged on the ground that Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could be issued only after the date of publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. (5) The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in two newspapers-one on 28th February, 1986 and the other on 1st March, 1986. Sectio...
Subhash Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes242; 31(1987)DLT100
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Originally, accused Ram Niwas, Ramesh (deceased), Ram Chander and Subbasti, all residents of Ragbubir Nagar. Delhi were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. The prosecution case, which is based on the first information Report Ex. PW-2/a by Ram Kishan, brother of the injured 0m Parkash, in brief, is that Kishan, brother of the injured 0m Parkash, in brief, is that the complainant is residing at B-147, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi and on 28.6.82 at about 11.45 a.m , he had gone to buy some medicine from the Chemist shop of Dr. S.K.., Biswas, at a nearby place. At that time, he noticed accused Ramesh (since deceased) Ram Chander, Ram Niwas and Subhash standing near the shop. He knew them from as being the residents of the same area. He and his brother were in fact on inimical terms with the accused. On seeing him, they called out that it was a good opportunity for them to take revenge. Ram Kishan sensing trouble immediately turne...
Amarnath Khandelwal Agencies Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD250(Delhi)
1. This miscellaneous petition by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is filed with regard to the order of the Tribunal bearing IT Appeal Nos. 5533 to 5535 (Delhi) of 1984 relating to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83 dated 24-4-1986. In the miscellaneous application, it has been projected that during the course of hearing, the appellant-company had stated, inter alia, as under : (i) That the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was withdrawn on September 28, 1984 on the basis of the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax. Appellate Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. [1984] 8 ITD 296 ; (ii) That the order in the impugned appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the same day, i.e., September 28, 1984 ; (iii) That immediately thereafter, i.e., on October 3, 1984 in Part 4 of [1984] 149 ITR (St.) 92 it was reported that the Supreme Court had dismissed special leave petitions by the department against the orders dated...
Mrs. Sumitra Bhalla Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD384(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's second appeal arising out of her wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1977-78. We have heard the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned departmental representative, and have perused the material placed before us. The only ground raised in this appeal is about the adoption of a multiplier of 12.5 to the net annual rent of property being flat No. F-96 in a multistoreyed complex known as Himalaya House in Connaught Place, New Delhi for determining its fair market value for the purposes of wealth-tax. There was no dispute about the net maintainable rent of Rs. 21,355 and the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee was that a multiplier of 8 should have been adopted since the property is a commercial one and any one investing money would expect a better return when so many good companies are inviting deposits at the rate of 15 per cent per annum interest. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Smt...
Satya Wati Vs. O.N. Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi60
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the respondent. On 18th July, 1985, the respondent prayed for time to vacate the premises till 31st July, 1986 and agreed to give an undertaking to the court. He made the. following statement before Shri G. D. Dhanuka. Additional Rent Controller on 18th July, 1985 : 'STATEMENT of respondent on S.A.-I may be granted time to vacate till 31-7-1986. I give undertaking to the court that I shall handover vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner on or before 31-7-1986. I am in possession and shall not part with the same to anybody'. R.O.& A.C. sd/- O. N. Sehgal. C.C.P. No. 126 of 1986 I identify O. N. Sehgal. sd/- Ashok Popli, Advocate.' Counsel for the petitioner made the following statement : 'STATEMENT of V. K. Makhija, Advocate for petitioner.- The respondent may be given time to vacate the premises till 31-7-1986 if the undertaki...
Gulab Preet and ors. Vs. Tirath Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes649; 31(1987)DLT28; 1986(11)DRJ321
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The petitioners have brought this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) for the quashing of the order dated 10-101985 passed by ShriS.K.Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby the petitioners were summoned. to face the trial for offences under Sections 418/420/34 Indian Penal Code as also for the quashing of the orders subsequent thereto and in particular order dated 5-5-1986.(2) The complaint was filed by the respondent Tirath Singh against the petitioners on the allegations that the petitioners had, in furtherance of their common intention, cheated him by dishonestly concealing the age of Smt. Gulab Preet @ Preet Kaur (petitioner No. 1) and thereby fraudulently induced him to accept the marriage proposal for his son and as a result of which he had to suffer a loss of about Rs 75.000.00 and odd.(3) According to the allegations of the complainant a matrimonial advertisement was given in the Daily Tribu...
Mega Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC267
1. This is an appeal originally filed as a Revision application and now transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the Electrolytic Condensers imported by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.15 of the CTA 1975 or under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(2) of CTA. The lower authorities have assessed them under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(2) on the ground that these are nothing but Electrical Capacitators which are specifically stated in the said Tariff Heading.The appellants, on the other hand, contend that these are parts of Radio Reception apparatus classified under Tariff Heading 85.15 and as such they are reliable to the benefit of Notification 341/76-Cusv dated 2-8-1976 since the goods have been imported from Yugoslavia. In support of their contentions, the learned Advocate for the appellants stressed that Electrolytic Capacitators are different in form and design and function from Electrical...
i.D.P.L. Hyderabad Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC395Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal filed by the appellants M/s. I.D.P.L. who are a Government of India undertaking is eligibility of the appellants to refund in respect of their product "Vitamin Premix" for the period from 1978 to 30.10.1981.2. We have heard Shri N.K. Dev, Consultant for the appellants and Shri S.R. Kunte, DDR for the Respondent and have perused the papers.3. Earlier the appellants were classifying and clearing their product under Tariff Item 14-E of the Central Excise Tariff. On 9.3.1981, the appellants filed classification list claiming Tariff Item 68 as proper classification for their product. They, however, continued to pay duty as specified under Tariff Item 14-E. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 1.4.1982. This classification under Tariff Item 68 is not in dispute. The appellants then applied for refund of differential duty for the period specified in para-1 above.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »