Delhi Court August 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.
Sat NaraIn Khanna Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD521(Delhi)
1. In all these appeals the grounds raised are common. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by combined order for the sake of convenience. Grounds in the case of IT Appeal No. 309 (Delhi) of 1985 which reflect the grounds in other appeals also read as under : I. That the learned Wealth-tax Officer and the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner have erred in law and in not allowing exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, while computing interest of assessee in the partnership firms Jivan Corpn., Roop Industries & Khanna Poultry Farm as required by Section 4(1)(b) in accordance with Rule 2D(c)of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. II. That it is prayed that justice be done to the appellant and necessary relief on the above ground be please ordered to be allowed.2. The short controversy raised before us was whether, while computing the interest of a partner in a firm, exemption clauses should be given effect to in computing the net wealth of ...
Sitaram Arvind Kumar Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD780(Delhi)
1. The first controversy in this appeal is with regard to the nature of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme ('CDS') deposit amounting to Rs. 31,213.According to the assessee CDS deposit is annuity and so the same was exempt from inclusion in the aggregation of assets not being an asset in terms of the definition of the said term as given in Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') which reads, inter alia, as below : (e) 'assets' includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include,- (2) in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1970, or any subsequent assessment year- (ii) a right to any annuity not being an annuity purchased by the assessee or purchased by any other person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee in any case where the terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the computation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant ; According to the assessee, as CDS is refundable in five equal instalments,...
Shiv NaraIn Karmender NaraIn Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)21ITD69(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from rather peculiar and unfortunate circumstances. It appears that the IAC (Assessment) had initiated action under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1979-80 on account of a mistake allegedly apparent from record with regard to the charging of depreciation on electric fittings, motor car, etc. On the basis of the order passed under Section 154 by the ITO, demand notice was issued to the assessee on 9-12-1982. In the computation given on the fact of this demand notice, it was indicated that interest was being charged from the assessee in terms of Section 139 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 32,639 and in terms of Section 216 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 36,954.2. The assessee appealed against the aforesaid order under Section 154 to the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 31-3-1983 quashed the demand for interest by observing, inter alia, as follows : 6. Again this action of the assessing officer cannot b...
Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT442TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture among other products steel wire of various types. The steel wires manufactured by the appellants was classified under Item 26AA (ia) of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants filed a classification list under Rule 173B and it was approved by the proper officer on 25-3-1974 classifying among others steel wires galvanised and ungalvanised and stranded steel wire for ACSR Core under 26AA (ia). The classification was approved after enquiry and after verifying the materials. No appeal or revision was filed by the Department on the approval of the classification list. While so on 28-10-1978 the Superintendent, Central Excise, requested the appellants to show cause why galvanised stranded wire should not be classified under Item 68 instead of 26 A A (ia). The appellants replied that the deman...
H.M.T. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: (1990)(26)LC94Tri(Delhi)
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal, relates to the value of the goods obtained by the appellants under Rule I96A and later disposed of by them. In March, 1977 the appellants disposed of some Motor Vehicle Parts (earlier received by them under Rule 192) from their premises after paying duty on the basis of the value declared AR 3A forms. The Department initiated proceedings taking the view that it was on the higher value at which the appellants sold the goods that they had to pay Central Excise duty and not the value mentioned in the AR 3A forms. The appellants resisted the demand and the show cause notice and submitted that value of goods is determined by the time and place of removal from the place of manufacture and not by the time and place of a subsequent sale. The Department rejected this plea and compounded the duty. The appellants lost in appeal also. Hence this appeal.2.We heard Shri Bedi and Shmt. Wadhwa, Advocates and Shri Arora, the Ld. JDR for the Depa...
General Sales P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Gopal Mukherjee, Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Del)11; [1987]166ITR77(Delhi)
Jagdish Chandra, J. 1. The petitioners have brought this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C.) for the quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated May 2, 1986, whereby the petitioner had been summoned in the criminal complaint dated May 2, 1986, pending in the court of Mrs. Manju Goel, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, which had been instituted by respondent No. 1, Shri Gopal Mukherjee, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VII, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi, under sections 276C(1) and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') and under sections 193 and 196 read with section 120B, Indian Penal Code, in regard to the assessment year 1984-85 of the company, petitioner No. 1, M/s. General Sales Pvt. Ltd., 8, Malcha Marg Market, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the company'), and also for quashing the proceedings in that criminal compliant. 2. It is a settled proposition of law and also conceded by learned...
Chaman Lal Grover Vs. Brij Lal Dhamija and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT481; 1986(11)DRJ284; 1986RLR596
Sunnanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner who is the owner and landlord of premises bearing No XIV/1229 Gali Giarha, Sadar Bazar, Delhi filed petition for eviction against respondent No. I in respect of these premises under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The petitioner is this petition asserted that the premises were required for his bonafide personal need and the needs of his family members The respondent No. I was served with the summons under Section 25B of the Act on 27th March 1983 and he filed an application for leave to defend under Section 25B(4) of the Act on 3rd May, 1983. An objection was taken by the petitioner that the application for leave to defend was time barred since it was filed beyond 15 days of the service of summons. By order dated lst December 1983 the Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend as being beyond the period of limitation and further passed an order of evi...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Khaitan Fans (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT321TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) allowed deduction of purchase tax from the sale price of electric fans manufactured by the respondents. On hearing both sides, we observe that the department wants this deduction to be disallowed on the ground that the said purchase tax is paid not on the electric fans which are the excisable goods required to be valued and assessed for the purpose of charge of Central Excise Duty but on the raw materials purchased by the respondents for the manufacture of electric fans. We agree with the department. Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 permits deduction of sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on the excisable goods which are the subject of assessment. Such goods, in the present case, are electric fans. Deduction towards sales tax or purchase tax paid on raw materials, which go into the manufacture of the fans, is not permissible. Such tax on the raw materials becomes a part of the price paid for the raw ...
Khaitan Fans (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT250TriDel
1. The prayer of the appellants in this appeal is that while determining the assessable value of their electric fans, commission, cost of wooden crate (special secondary packing) and cost of regulator should not be included.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.We record our findings and order on each of the aforesaid three items. The appellants pay this commission to an agent for the services rendered by them in procuring orders from Government departments. The agent is not the actual buyer of the fans but is a third party. The commission pay to him is not in the nature of trade discount given to dealers or wholesale buyers. The appellants sought reliance on the Supreme Court judgment reported at 1986 (23) ELT 8(SC) - Moped India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore and Ors., paragraph 6. But we find from this judgment that it dealt with commission paid to dealers who were not agents of the assessee in that case. This judgment, ther...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Jayalakshmi Cotton and Oil
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC233
1. In this matter a review show cause notice has been issued under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for review of Order-in-Appeal No. 35/81 (Cus) dated 24th April, 1981 passed, by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay on the appeal of M/s. Jayalakshmi Cotton and Oil Products (P) Ltd., against Order-in- Original No. 22/81 dt.21-3-1981, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kakinada. On the setting up of this Tribunal it is transferred here and is being treated as an appeal before us.2. When the matter is called Shri S.B. Seshadri, Administrative Officer of the respondent Company has raised a preliminary objection that the review, show cause notice is hit by limitation. It is submitted; that the Order-in-Appeal was passed on 24th April, 1981, the review show cause notice has been issued by the Central Government under Section 131(3) on the 11th February, 1982 and was received by the respondent on 16th February, 1982. It is submitted that under 'Section 131(5) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »