Delhi Court July 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.
Gokal Chand Rattan Chand Woollen Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC63
1. These are two revision petitions, one filed by Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and the other by Gokalchand Rattanchand Woollen Mills. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. On the setting up of this Tribunal, these are transferred here and are being heard as appeals before us.2. Since both these matters involve classification of the same article, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. In both matters appellants are manufacturers of hand-knitting acrylic yarn. It is submitted on behalf of Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. that for many years they were clearing the grey yarn from their spinning department after payment of duty at the grey stage and sending the same to their dyeing and bleaching department. Dyeing and bleaching department was also receiving duty paid grey yarn from other factories. The case against the Modella Textile Industries Ltd. is that they did not file proper classification list for hand-knitting acrylic yarn processed and cleared by them. T...
Collector of Customs Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC314Tri(Delhi)
1. The Captioned appeal has been filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs Tribunal Co-ordination Unit Bombay, on behalf of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, seeking reversal of the Order-in-Appeal passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dated 30.11.1984, whereby he has set aside Assistant Collector's order, passed on 30.10.1983.2. The facts, as gathered from the file, are that the respondents herein, took clearance of 12 Nos. of Air Jet Looms vide B/E No. 7785 dated 31.3.1983, alongwith its accessories and certain parts, after paying duty on merits. Thereafter, a contract for 'Project Import' benefit under T.I. 84.66 was submitted to the Collector of Customs, Bombay on 7.4.1983, with reference to the original contract dated 26.11.1982 for 24 Nos. of Air Jet Weaving Machines, as confirmed by the suppliers vide letter dated 2.12.1982. Since this application dated 7.4.1983 satisfied conditions of 'project Import Regulations', and was accompanied by all requisite papers inclu...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Miss Alka Mahajan
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD425(Delhi)
1. Since all the assessees belong to the same group and since an identically worded ground on the identical facts and circumstances of the case is raised before us in these appeals by the revenue and additionally since we have been addressed in one set by the learned departmental representative (the assessee being not represented despite service of valid notices for the date of hearing in all the cases); all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. The revenue's grievance seems to be that exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') was not to be allowed to the assessees since the flat has not been registered in their names.Under Section 5(1)(iv), one house or a part of the house belonging to the assessee is to be treated as an exempted asset up to the valuation provided in the provisos attached thereto. The words used are 'belonging to the assessee' and not the words 'owned by the assessees'.If the assets are not belonging to the assesse...
V. Bhagat Vs. Usha Bhagat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi74a; 30(1986)DLT307; 1986(11)DRJ169
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner in this petition is Shri V. Bhagat, Advocate. He was the plaintiff in his Suit which was instituted in the Court of District Judge, Delhi on 2nd January, 1986. Miss Usha Bhagat, the defendant is his sister. The office of the District Judge fixed the case before the District Judge on 6th January, 1986 but the petitioner/plaintiff as per the averments, noted the date as 8th January, 1986. The case was marked to the Court of Shri S M. Aggarwal, A D J. by the District Judge. On the same day, Shri S. M. Aggarwal directed his office to check up the case and report for tomorrow. On 7th January, 1986, however, none appeared for the plaintiff and the case was ordered to be resisted on 8th January, 1986. The order of the said date reads as under : 'PRESENT:None Be awaited. The case has been listed for 3 days but none has turned up to prosecute the same. Hence, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. Consign. sd/- 8-1-86- 3 P. M.'(2) The petitioner has all...
Auto Lamps Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)LC601Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly the facts are that the appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of auto-bulbs. They have four zonal distributors in the country who market their products which are branded as 'Allite'.Nearest of these distributors is at Delhi. Apart from these distributors, appellants are also manufacturing auto-bulbs branded 'Mico' and 'Caltex'. These are stated to be supplied to 'Mico' and 'Caltex' as well as to Government departments. It is stated that 65% of their sale is through their four distributors and the Government departments, 20% is sold under the 'Mico' brand name and 15% balance is sold under the brand name 'Caltex'.2. As per show cause notice issued to the appellants, it is alleged that appellants had claimed a trade discount of 35.57% and paid duty accordingly, whereas actually they had passed a trade discount of only 20% to their wholesale dealers. It is also alleged that M/s. Auto Lamps submitted two price lists for their products No. 1/73 and No. 4/72. The Departm...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sohan Singh Dhingra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD390(Delhi)
1. IT Appeal No. 11 raises the issue of validity of partial partition of the assets of the undivided family of Shri Sohan Singh Dhingra, and the date on which such partition, if any, took place. Income-tax Appeal No. 2919 questions the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 21,000 in the total income of the family on the basis of the finding of the ITO that the partial partition in question was not recognisable under the law.2. The facts, on the basis of which the present controversy arises may be noted. Shri Sohan Singh Dhingra is the karta of the HUF consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Amrit Dhingra and his minor son, Master Harnam Singh Dhingra. The said family owned some immovable and movable properties. On 30-12-1978, a declaration was made in writing by the said Shri Sohan Singh Dhingra in the presence of two witnesses that he was making a partial partition of his HUF, insofar as he wanted to give Rs. 50,000 to his minor son, Master Harnam Singh Dhingra and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh joint...
Powell Nwawa Ogechi Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi181; 1986RLR577
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition came up before us on a reference having been made by a learned 'Single Judge on the ground that the petition raises a legal question on which there is a conflict of judicial opinions and requires consideration by a larger bench. (2) The petitioner was arrested in case F. 1. R. No. 60 of 1986 under section 17122161185 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 recorded at Police Station Railway New Delhi Station. The arrest was made on 3-2-1986. He was remanded to judicial custody with effect from 4-2-86 and continued in judicial custody. We have, however, passed an order on 30th July, 1986 directing his admission to bail. (3) By this petition the petitioner has sought bail under the provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on the ground that an absolute right for being offered bail had accrued in his favor because of the failure of the Investigating Agency to file the charge-sheet against him within '...
Kamaljeet Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT296; 1986RLR51
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) Petitioner Kamaljeet arrested in the case Fir No. 6/86 under Sections 302/34 Ipc, is alleged to have given one knife injury on the chest of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. The petitioner claims the grant of bail asserting that the challan in this case was filed after more than 90 days of his remand The petitioner admittedly surrendered himself before the magistrate on 13-3-1986 and the police filed the challan on 13-6-1986 and the period calculated keeping in mind these two dates the challan was filed on 93rd day. It is, however, pointed out by Mr. Sodhi representing the State that the police had no knowledge of the surrender of the petitioner before the magistrate and learnt of the same only on 17-3-1986 on receiving notice from the magistrate and the police arrested him formally on 17-3-1986. For this reason it is urged by Mr. Sodhi that the counting of the period of 90 days should start keeping in view the date 17-3-1986 on which the poli...
Jacson Thavera Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT121TriDel
(a) the appellant was served with a notice dated 4-6-1982 (at P.57 and 58 of the Paper Book filed by the appellant) alleging, inter alia, (i) the clearance of the machinery imported under Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, on payment of duty at concessional rates as therein specified, after registration of the contract for supply of the machinery as a "Project Import" at the request and on the application of the appellant, (ii) failure of the appellant either to instal the machinery imported in their premises or utilize the same for the substantial expansion of their factory and consequent improvement in its output for export, contrary to the declared intent as set forth in the aforesaid application for registration as well as the Bill of Entry dated 12-11-1979, (iii) apparent misdeclaration in the application as well as the Bill of Entry which would necessiate a reassessment under S. 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the Act) on merits...
B.K. Chadha Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD158(Delhi)
1. In this appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1979-80, the controversy centres around the question as to whether the surplus of Rs. 98,000 realised by the assessee on sale of a property situate at 142, Raja Garden, New Delhi was exempt from the assessment under the head 'Capital gains' under the provisions of Section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') or not.2. An agreement to sell the property had been executed and duly registered on 25-1-1979. The vendor-assessee received the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 and the possession of the property is said to have been given to the vendee who was a tenant in a part of that property. He had also executed a power of attorney in favour of the vendee's wife in order that the sale could be executed even when the vendor was abroad. The ITO held that the surplus of Rs. 98,000 was not assessable under the head 'Capital gains' but was assessable as 'Income from other sources'. According to him, there was no va...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »