Delhi Court February 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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurmukh Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ9
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Additional District Judge, who, on an appeal having been filed by respondent No.1, had set aside the assessment to house tax of the house owned by respondent No. 1 and had determined himself the rateable value thereof. (2) Respondent No. I is the owner of the house No. E-274, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Construction of the ground floor was commenced sometimes in 1971 and the same was let out to a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 475.00 . The rateable value of this was fixed at Rs. 5130.00 per annum on the basis of rent received by respondent No. 1. (3) In the year 1978-79 respondent No. I constructed the first floor and Barsati floor. The said Barsati floor was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 . The ground floor was let out at an increased rent of Rs. 850.00 Per month. (4) On account of the additional structure having been constructed the Corporation issued a notice under Section 126 proposing to enhanc...
AshwIn Vanaspati Industries (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC668Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts, in so far material in this appeal against an order of adjudication dated 1.4.1983 by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad are:- (a) a contract for the supply of 1231.508 M/Tonnes of Refined Industrial Coconut Oil was concluded between the appellant and M/s. Patel Holdings, Singapore on 11.1.1982, who had duly exported them to India by the vessel "Aurora Glory" through three Bills. of Lading for 155.7933 M/Tons, 6.15.1337 M/Tons and 460.581, M/Tons respectively; (b) The appellant filed, on 2.11.1982, three separate Bills of Entry Nos. 263, 264 and 265 in respect of the aforesaid shipments. The ship arrived on 4.11.1982; (c) A notice dated 3.2.1983 was issued to the Appellant requiring them to show cause against confiscation of the goods under S.111(d) and a levy of penalty Under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. This notice was adjudicated by the Collector who by his aforesaid order held that the import licences produced by the appellant did not cove...
Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC369Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a proceeding initiated and filed as an "Appeal" against the Orders of the Tribunal Nos. 313 to 367/1984-A (in Appeal Nos. 1847/83-A and 192 to 245/84-A) praying for the award of interest in a sum of Rs. 60,91,318.00 on the fine in lieu of confiscation paid in excess nearly 17 years ago together with Rs. 2,30,474.00 alleged to have been paid towards guarantee commission by the applicant to the bank on "excess Bank guarantee amount".2. Briefly, the allegations appearing in the "appeal" supplemented from facts from the relevant papers in the record are - (a) pursuant to orders in adjudication by the Collectors of Customs, Bombay and Calcutta, certain imported goods were confiscated absolutely in some cases and subject to redemption on payment of a fine in lieu thereof in certain others ; (b) various appeals preferred against such orders, were disposed of by the Board of Central Excise and Customs in six orders between 1.6.1968 and 13.3.1969 by which redemption on payment of va...
Gunwantrai Harivallabha Jani, Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT151TriDel
1. Being dis-satisfied with the impugned order demanding a duty of Rs. 5,798.52 on biris removed without payment of Central Excise duty and also confiscating the biris in question by appropriating Rs. 2,500/- towards redemption fine besides a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrops: As a result of surprise visit on 2.7.82, to the factory of the appellant, a squad of Central Excise Officers found the excess stock of 20,72,525 Biris lying in B.S.R./labeiling room in partly open condition. The same were seized under a proper panchnama for contravening the provisions of Central Excise Rules. After the usual investigation, a Show Cause Notice, calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the seized biris be not confiscated and why duty on total 35,8^,525 labelled biris be not recovered and also why penalty be not imposed upon them under the Central Excise Rules was issued. In reply, the appellants contended that there was no excess o...
Collector of Customs Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC255Tri(Delhi)
1. Under a Bill of Entry Cash No. 3068 dated 29-3-1979 the appellants- imported goods described as 'Differential Pressure Indicator'. The goods were assessed to duty under heading 90.24(1),CTA at 40% plus 5% (AD plus CVD) at the rate of 8%. After clearing the goods the appellants applied for refund of part of the- duty (Auxiliary duty) paid by them on the ground that the imported goods were entitled to be classified under Heading 84.11(1), CTA and to the concessional assessment under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. read with Notification No.53/79-Cus. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as unsubstantiated as, according to the Order-in-original the appellants did not, in spite of repeated requests, file certain documents called for by him.2. The Appellate Collector before whom an appeal was filed allowed the appeal in the following order: "Having regard to evidence of end use produced, this appeal claiming benefit of 35/7.9 plus incidental benefit of auxiliary duty is hereby allowed...
Pradeep Oil Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD430(Delhi)
1. In this appeal by the assessee, the only issue involved is whether the assessee is a 'Mineral Oil Concern' and thereby whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 30% on well-head tanks, which are used for storage of vegetable oils. The plea of the assessee before us was that the assessee is carrying on the business of dealing, handling, distribution of oils to various grades and types and at the relevant time for storage of (raw) crude vegetable oil in its well-head tanks for the State Trading Corporation. The plea was that the well-head tanks were constructed as per the specifications of I.S.I, of storage of crude vegetable oils (Palm Oil). The assessee's claim was that the vegetable oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons and glycerol and contains fatty acids to the tune of 10% and on refinement it is reduced to about 1% . In view of the fact that the vegetable oils contained corrosive chemicals as well as the rate of depreciation would be 30% and not 15%. The asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Del)84
Ranganathan, J.1. These six applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax against the same assessed (M/s. Hindustan Times Ltd.) can be disposed of by a common order since they involve some common questions. The applications relate to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively. 2. One common question the reference of which is sought in all the applications is whether the assessed is entitled to depreciation in respect of a sum of Rs. 36,96,516 which it claimed as part of the actual cost of a construction put up by it for business purposes. This question arises briefly in the following circumstances : The assessed purchased an existing residential building bearing No. 18-20 at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in the year 1961. Since the assessed wanted to use the building for commercial purposes, it paid certain additional charges to the Development Officer of the Government of India and als...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and Another Vs. Central Board of Direct ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Del)1; [1987]166ITR88(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as they raise the same question. 2. The petitioner in all the three cases is Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., a company which has its registered office in Allahabad. The petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness of a demand raised against it for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. These demands were raised in consequence of orders passed by the Income tax officer giving effect to the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals preferred against the assessments pertaining to the above assessment years. Actually the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had decided the assessed's appeals in favor of the assessed to some extent and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department from the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We are not here concerned with the correctness or otherwise of these orders of the Tribunal. The objection of the assessed is tha...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ25
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) These three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as they raise the same question. (2) The petitioner in all the three cases in Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., a company which has its registered office in Allahabad. The petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness of a demand raised against it for the assessment Years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. These demands were raised in consequence of orders passed by the Income-tax Officer giving effect to the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals preferred against the assessments pertaining to the above assessment years. Actually the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had decided the assessed's appeals in favor of the assessed to some extent and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the department from the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We are not here concerned with the correctness or otherwise of these orders of the Tribunal. The objection of the assessed ...
J.L. Gupta Vs. Rajinder Pershad Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT157
Goswamy, J.(1) This appeal by the owner-landlord is directed against the order dated 15.1.1985 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby his appeal against the holding of objections to the execution under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also dismissed.(2) The appellant let his property namely house No. D-192, AshokVihar Phase 1. New Delhi ground floor to the respondent under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on 10.7.1979. In the application under section 21 it was stated that the petitioner at the relevant time was on deputation at Kathmandu and after the expiry of period of deputation in February 1982 he would come to Delhi with his family and would reside in the house in dispute.Since the appellant himself was actually on deputation, a statement to the same effect was made by the general attorney of the appellant. The respondent also agreed to take the property under section 21 and accepted the reasonings given by the appellant Consequently the Rent Controller b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »