Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 6 of about 90 results (0.021 seconds)Express Transport Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC2
1. In this appeal, which was originally a revision petition filed before the Central Govt., the only point that survives for determination, is the question of classification of goods covered by item No:3 of Bill of Entry No: 894 dated 9.11.79. These goods are described as; "Light Source Assembly" and they are assessed under 71-85.18/27(4) of CTA. The importers in this case are M/s Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals.2. Today, at the time of hearing before us, Shri A.K. Goel, Addl.Purchase Manager of the aforesaid consignee has appeared. He has argued that the imported goods are in fact component parts of GAS ANALYSER and that as such are assessable under TI-90 29(1) of the CTA read with TI-90.28(4) further read with 90.25(1) CTA inasmuch as non-electrical GA or Gas Analyser equipments, fall under 90.25(1), and corresponding electrical GA would fall under 90.28(4) and as parts thereof under subheading 90.29(1). Shri Goyal has supported his arguments with reference to the catalogue pert...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.P. Gupta Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (As ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Del)91; [1987]168ITR33(Delhi)
Jagdish Chandra, J.1. A complaint under sections 276c-277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and under sections 193/196, IPC, was made by Shri R. R.Gupta, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range XIV, New Delhi, against the present petitioner, Dr. R. P. Gupta, in respect of the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1980-81 alleging that the petitioner had willfully attempted to evade tax, interest and penalty and had made a statement in verification, delivered an account and statement which are false, which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe the same to be true and had also fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same in the course of income-tax proceedings and that he dishonestly and fraudulently used that evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings which are judicial proceedings. It is alleged that after investigation, the assessment of the petitioner was completed for the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Khandani Shafakhana Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1989]175ITR408(Delhi)
1. Certain books of account and documents belonging to the petitioner, Khandani Shafakhana, were seized by the Income-tax Officer on November 20, 1981, and November 25, 1981. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the seizure and retention order on the ground that the respondents did not obtain the approval of the Commissioner for the retention of the documents within a period of 180 days from the date of the seizure. It is stated that there has been violation of the provisions of section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act. The respondents in their reply have placed on record certain documents showing that approval of the Commissioner was obtained for the retention of the documents. Learned counsel appearing for the Department contends that the Department has no objection to the return of the account books and the documents subject to the conditions that the Department at their own cost shall obtain photocopies of the relevant entries and the documents and they should be attested by t...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Mohan Chawla Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT96
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in short 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioner Chander Mohan Chawla assailing the order dated 11th October, 1985 passed by Smt. Pratibha Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, as also the order dated 2nd May, 1985 passed by Shri V S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) Respondent No. I Babu Lal filed a complaint against the petitioner Chander Mohan Chawla and respondent No. 2 Madan Lal under section 183/457/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code on 6th October, 1981 and the same was pending before the learned Magistrate Smt. Pratibha Rani at the stage of pre-charge evidence till 20lh May, 1985. That complainant was fixed for hearing on 21st May, 1985 when neither the complaint nor his counsel was present and so the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and consequently discharged the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (3) COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT No. 1 Babu Lal moved an application on 1st...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes564; ILR1986Delhi249
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) A complaint under Sections 276 to 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and under Sections 193/196 Indian Penal Code was made by Shri R. R. Gupta Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter to be referred to as IAC) of Income-tax (Assessment). Range Xiv, New Delhi against the present petitioner Dr. R. P. Gupta in respect of the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1980-81 alleging thar the petitioner had willfully attempted to evade tax. interest and penalty and had made a statement in verification. delivered an account and statement which are false, which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe the same to he true and had also fabricated false evidence Fertile purpose of using the same in the course of income-tax proceedings and that he dishonestly and fraudulently used that evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings which are judicial proceedings. It is alleged that after investigation the assessment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC246Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these seven appeals and they relate to the same appellants. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute relates to Mineral Turpentine Oil removed in bulk on payment of duty from: both belonging to the appellants. A part of the production was stock transferred to Paharpur and Budge Budge filling stations after payment of duty. At these filling stations, the goods were packed in containers and sold to: (1) Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal in the appellants' containers at Rate Contract Price which included the cost of the container; and (2) Non-Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal parties in customer's containers.3. The case of the department is that since all the four installations - Haldia Refinery, Mourigram Bonded warehouse, Paharpur Filling Station and Budge Budge Filling Station - belonged to the appellants, the packed sales to D.G.S.&D., ex-Paharpur and Ex-Budge Budge should pay duty at the higher pr...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT57TriDel
1. The facts in a short compass in this appeal against an order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay are - (a) the appellant is a manufacturer of woollen blankets and other woollen products. Woollen rags are used as raw material for the aforesaid manufacture; (b) a contract was concluded between the appellant and M/s. Wooltex Fibre Recycling, Holland, for the sale and export to India of 180 tons of woollen rags on or about 17.12.1983(Annexure 'A' to the Memorandum of grounds of Appeal). The description of the goods therein was Old : Rags of Woollen Textile Fabrics Including knitted and crocheted fabrics) which are required for manufacture of shoddy yarn and may Consist of articles of furnishing or clothing or other clothing so worn out soiled or torn as to be beyond cleaning or repair" - The price at 1.26 Dutch Guilders per Kg. GIF aggregated to 2,26,800 Dutch Guilders. Payment by L/C; (c) a letter of credit, accordingly, was opened on 8.3.1984 arid eventually the goods arri...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal International Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD273(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the department directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relates to the assessment year 1982-83. As the points involved in these two appeals are common, the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. In the assessee's appeal the first two grounds have not been pressed and they are, therefore, rejected.3. Ground No. 3 and its various parts relate to an issue which is also covered by the ground in the departmental appeal. The assessee is a private limited company which derives income from exploitation and distribution rights acquired in certain films. The assessee-company was also a partner in the firm named VIP films of Bombay. The assessee had purchased distribution rights of the Hindi feature film 'Kranti' for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh Circuit for a consideration Rs. 90,01,000. The film had been produced by the firm VIP films of Bombay and they had gifted the distribution rights in Delhi and UP to ...
Tag this Judgment!Talwar Diamonds Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi320; [1987]61CompCas426(Delhi); 1987(12)ECC122; 1987(12)LC814(Delhi); 1987(28)ELT331(Del)
Ranganathan, J.1. We had issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted. We are of the opinion that as the question which is involved in this petition is a very short one, it would be expedient to dispose of the writ petition itself. We, thereforee, issue rule D.B. and, having heard both counsel, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits. 2. The writ petition is directed against an order dated July 11, 1986, under which the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh, directed the petitioner to stop carrying on business as dealers in gold. This direction was issued in pursuance of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated May 30, 1986. The writ petition thereforee really involved the question of correctness of the above decision of the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner, M/s. Talwar Diamonds, is a firm consisting of six partners. Three of the partners of the firm are already partners in a firm kn...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT82
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge. Delhi dated 2nd December 1985 passed on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The Additional District Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit the rent in court in future and continue to do so till the disposal of the suit.(2) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the plaintiffs in the main suit for partition and rendition of accounts is only to the extent of 1/6th of his share in respect of land measuring 316 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No. 169 min situated in village Nangal Rai, Delhi Cantt. but the Additional District Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit the whole of the rent received by him. Moreover, it is contended that the application is not yet disposed of and is still pending before the trial court. Learned counsel states that if he is directed to deposit the whole of...
Tag this Judgment!