Delhi Court October 1987 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.
U-foam Private Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC96Tri(Delhi)
1. This order disposes of the appellant's application for condonation of delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.2. The hearing leading to the impugned order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, Camp Hyderabad, took place on 16-f-1982. The order was communicated to the appellant on 5-11-1982. The order bears the date of issue 29-10-1982 but does not bear the date of order itself. From the postal receipt shown to us by Shri Y.G. Ramamurthy during arguments it is seen that the Memo, of Appeal was sent by registered post to the Tribunal on 1-4-1983 and the same was received in the Tribunal on 11-4-1983. These facts are not in dispute.3. Facts emerging from the affidavit filed by Shri Y.G. Ramamurthy, appellant's learned advocate, Shri M. Sarangapani, appellant's Managing Director, Shri Y.G. Seetharam, Advocate, Shri Ramamurthy's Junior, are that the appellant's Managing Director approached Shri Y.G. Ramamurthy in the first week of February 1983. Shri Y.G. Ramamurthy after...
income-tax Officer Vs. New India Industrial Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD361(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue and the only ground raised is as below : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing to allow assessee's claim of Triple Shift Allowance.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.3. The assessee runs a cold storage and an ice factory the assessee claimed that the ice factory as well as the cold storage has to run all the 24 hours and, therefore, the concern worked triple shift and should be allowed extra depreciation allowance. The ITO allowed normal depreciation and has not dealt with the question of extra shift allowance. Probably it was not raised before him and the assessment order says "Depreciation as per chart filed by the assessee". Before the CIT(A) however, a claim was made for depreciation on triple shift basis. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee produced the wage register in support of the claim that there were different sets o...
Rajender Singh Vs. H.A. Arfi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT12b; 1988(14)DRJ166
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Collector, Delhi dated 25th July, 1983 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as applicable to Union Territory of Delhi, was dismissed.(2) The petitioner is a Bhumidar in village Bijwasan, Delhi and respondents 2 to 4 also hold land in the same village. Respondent No. 2 purchased the land from respondent No. 3 during the pendency of consolidation proceedings in village Bijwasan, Delhi. Consolidation scheme for village Bijwasan in terms of the provisions of 19(1) of the Act was drawn and published by the Consolidation Officer and the same was confirmed under Section 20 of the Act. After the scheme became final, the re-partition under Section 21 of the Act started. The petitioner was allotted land comp...
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Shakuntala GerA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]24ITD322(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri M. C. Agarwal, Judicial Member - This is an appeal by the revenue against an order dated 28-2-1985 passed by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner cancelling the assesseds assessment for asstt. year 1978-79 on the ground that it had been made after the expiry of the period of limitation. Though there were other grounds also in the appeal, the learned AAC did not decide them. The assessed has, thereforee, filed a cross-objection urging that the AAC should have decided those grounds as well.2. We have heard the learned departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessed. The facts are that the assesseds return of income was due to be filed on 30-7-1978 u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No return was filed within that time. The assessed filed a return of income on 30th August, 1978. The assessed filed a revised return on 17-2-1981 and the ITO completed the assessment on 15-2-1982. Before the AAC it was contended that the return filed on 17-2-1981 was not a...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Krishna Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes300; 34(1988)DLT72; 1988RLR78
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) By this Judgment, we propose lo dispose of two criminal appeals bearing No. 176 of 1984 and 250 of 1984, filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (hereinafter called the Corporation) against Smt. Krishna Devi. The impugned notices u)s 343 of the Municipal Corporation Acs (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relate to the same party namely Krishna Devi, respondent and concern the same properly. Furthermore, common questions of law and fact arise in these appeals.(2) In brief, the relevant facts aie that Smt. Krishna Devi is the owner of premises bearing No 113165, Rain Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. During the routine chocking by the Junior Engineer (Buildings) of the Corporation, she was found raising the construction of two rooms at, the first floor of the premises without any permission from the Corporation,. By a notice' dated 31st May, 1980, she was required to demolish the unauthorised construction. This notice was served on her on 2nd June, 1980. As .sh...
Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC132
1. A common issue is involved in these 19 appeals, they relate to the same appellants and were argued before us together. This combined order will dispose of all of them.2. The appellants imported Connecting Rod forgings and Cross forgings, made of steel, for eventual use in the manufacture of their two-wheeler and three-wheeler scooters. The lower authorities had assessed the goods to basic customs duty under Heading 84.06 (as part of internal combution engine) and 87.09/12(1) (as part of scooter) respectively, with additional customs duty under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff in some cases and under Item 68 thereof in others. In doing so, the lower authorities have held that by application of the Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, both the goods were deemed finished components. The appellants' prayer is that the goods in both cases were only rough forgings, that Interpretative Rule 2(a) was not applicable and that the basic customs duty should be assesse...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Diamond Cement Files
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT711TriDel
1. In response to notice of date of hearing, Shri K.G. Sooji, Consultant for the respondent by communication dated 14-10-1987 (received in the Tribunal on 19-10-1987) urges that this appeal involves the same issue as in case of Shubham Cement, Industrial Area, Kota (Appeal No. 1238/84-C parties Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Shubham Cement, Industrial Area, Kota. It is also noticed that impugned order in both the appeals is the same). Shri Sooji further requests that the present appeal may kindly be decided on the basis of decision taken on the appeal filed against M/s. Shubham Cement, Industrial Area, Kota, heard by the Bench on 6-10-1987 without their having to appear personally to argue before the Tribunal today (23-10-1987).2. In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal held that to avail of concession as Mini - Cement plant under Notification No. 194/79, dated 30-5-1979 existence of one or more kilns on the plant is an essential requirement and in absence of the same, the req...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Apex Rubber (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC379
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 26.8.1982, passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras.2. The respondents manufacture inter alia latex foam sponge into specific shapes and sizes as per consumers specifications and clear them from their factory. The latex foam sponge obtained in specific shapes and sizes have been described as "bus seats" and "scooter seats" and classified under TI 16A(1). Subsequently, the respondents filed a classification 6.2/81/82, dated 25.1.1982 wherein they stated to have classified the latex foam sponge described as "bus seats" and "scooter seats" as motor vehicle parts non-specified falling under T.I. 68 of the C.E.T. The Assistant Collector rejected the assessees claim and classified the goods under TI 16A(1).3. The respondents preferred an appeal and the Appellate Collector under the impugned order held that the articles should be classified under T.L 68. He was of the view that the respondents manufacture...
Madan Fruit Agency Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITR305(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order made Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the assessment year 1978-79 on 26-7-1985. Before we project and bring into focus the issue raised in this appeal for our determination, we record the factual backdrop of the case.2. The assessee is a firm working under the name and style of M/s.Madan Fruit Agency, New Subzi Mandi, Delhi. On a return filed by the assessee for the asst. year under appeal, the ITO made an order Under Section 143(1) of the Act on 5-1-1981. Subsequently, the ITO issued notice Under Section 148 and served it on the assessee on 24-8-1982 for initiation of proceedings for reassessment Under Section 147(6) of the Act. The assessee filed the return in response to this notice under protest and also submitted a letter dated 19-8-1983 with regard to these proceedings. The ITO had a discussion with the assessee and considering the reply dated 19-8-1983 dropped the proceedings on...
Goel Book Depot Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITR310(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the assessee have been heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Since, the facts relating to these two appeals coming up before us are rather interesting we record the same first.2. The assessee is a registered firm working under the name and style of M/s. Goel Book Depot at Saharanpur. It derives income from publication of books and their sale. While making the assessment for the year under appeal, the ITO came across certain purchases out of which he picked up an item of Rs. 10,800 because the payment for it had been made in cash. The assessee was not in a position to give details of the party from whom the purchases had been made but gave the reasons for the payment in cash and the reason for making such a purchase. The reason for making the purchase was that there was a scarcity of paper and the assessee needed it, and, therefore, the cash purchases were made. The ITO held these purchases as bogus and further...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »