Delhi Court March 1988 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.
Fedders Lloyd Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD437(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, by the assessee, a Ltd. company, the issue is whether the loan received from M/s. Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Punj by the assessee-company is in the nature of deposit within the meaning of Section 40A(8) and whether interest at 15 per cent needs to be disallowed or not.2. Brief facts of the case are the assessee a limited company is a manufacturer of air-conditioners, refrigerators, etc., and had been borrowing money from M/s. Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Punj in which concern the Directors/relatives are partners. As on 1-4-1978 the assessee-company was to receive over 25 lakhs of rupees from the said partnership firm which over the years has become an advance taken by the company from the said concern. During the course of assessment proceedings, enquiries were made on the said loan taken by the company and also why Section 40A(8) should not be held to be attracted and why 15 per cent should not be disallowed on the interest paid. The plea of the assessee was that the provisions of...
Godore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)25ITD193(Delhi)
1. There being difference of opinion between Members on some of the points involved as per orders annexed, the Special Bench Tribunal order is as follows : 1. 80J Relief to be recomputed within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, i.e., all liabilities are to be deducted for the purpose of computing capital employed, which shall have the effect of the Revenue's appeal on the point being allowed and the assessee's rejected (Unanimous view)-Ground No. 1 in both the appeals. 2. Coming to Section 35B dispute on which both the parties were in appeal, the revenue is ('s claim to be) rejected whereas the assessee partly succeeds inasmuch as, in respect of packing material expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,08,653, directions have been given that Section 35B deduction should be allowed in respect of bifurcated expenses on wrappers. The directions are similar to the one given in the assessee's own case in res...
Estate of Late Shri K.N. Kaula Vs. Appellate Controller of Estate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD105(Delhi)
1. Appellant by the present appeal challenges order dated 20-5-1987 of the learned Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, New Delhi passed on an appeal against order dated 20-2-1986 of the learned Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, inter alia, on the following grounds: 1. The learned Appellate Controller of Estate Duty has erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the claim made under Section 33(1)(n) of Estate Duty Act, 1953 under the application under Section 61 of ED Act. 2. That in doing so he has failed to appreciate that when all the connected material was on record even if accountable person has not claimed in the return it was the duty of the learned Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to allow the claim hence it was a mistake apparent from record rectifiable under Section 61 of Estate Duty Act, 1953.2. Late Shri K.N. Kaula unfortunately expired on 11-12-1964. The deceased had 1/2 share in the residential house bearing No. 7, Sika...
Rattan Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi222
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioners in the two separate writ petitions are seeking directions to the State for their premature release as according to them they have already undergone over 14 years rigorous imprisonment. Their plea is that their cases have been recommended by the Jail Superintendent within the ambit of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and hence they are entitled to be released forthwith.(2) Rattan Kumar is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 508/87. Vijay Singh who was a co-accused with him in the murder case has filed a separate petition which has been numbered as Criminal Writ Petition No. 517/87. They were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated the 6th January, 1977. As they were convicted prior to the enforcement of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they do not have to mandatorily undergo 14 years actual rigorous imprisonme...
A.S. Periasamy, Proprietor, Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC260Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter, it has been held that the appellant had cleared 1,50,38,920 Nos. of biris without bringing them into Cental Excise accounts and without payment of duty. Accordingly, the department has demanded duty of the order of Rs. 57,812.31 and' a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed on A.S. Periasamy, Proprietor of appellant factory. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed before us.2. We have heard V.K. Dorairaj, Adv.,, and Balbir Singh, SDR for the department.3. The learned Adv. submits that the entire case against the appellant is made on the basis of two note-books; one reportedly produced by the informer and another by one Sivalingam. These records, it is submitted, were not recovered from the appellant or from his factory. The informer, it is stated, was a former employee of the factory of the appellant, who had been discharged from service for undertaking "parallel trade in biris". It is submitted that it is therefore that he is trying to wreak venge...
Nova Impex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC56
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras. The appellants had filed the appeal on various grounds. One of the grounds is for re assessment of the imported goods, namely Desmophen 7186B, described in the appeal as Polyether polyol.The lower authority had assessed the goods under 39.01/06 CTA read with 15A CET for cv duty purposes. The appellants pleaded for reassessment under heading 38.01/19(1) CTA read with Item 68 CET. Collector (Appeals) in this regard accepted the reasoning given for rejection of the appellants claim by the original authority. He gave no further findings in the matter.2. Learned Consultant for the appellants stated that he is not pressing the other grounds of appeal and he restricted his pleas in respect of reassessment of the goods. He drew our attention to the reasoning given by the Assistant Collector and which was adopted by the Collector (Appeals). The findings of the Assistant Collector for convenience of reference a...
Dharam Pal BhasIn Vs. B.N. Khanna and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas651(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1946 (for short' the Act'), The petitioner has prayed that the register of members of the company be rectified by deleting the names of all the persons who became members of the company beyond the figure of 1,500. The company is the Delhi and District Cricket Association Ltd. (for short 'DDCA') and respondent No. 16. There are 18 responded in all. Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 are stated to be the directors of the DDCA having been elected in the annual general meeting held on September 30, 1983. Respondents Nos. 17 and 18 have been nominated by the Central Government under the provision of section 408 of the Act. These directors constitute the general committee or the executive committee, as it is now called, of the DDCA. The Central Government has issued direction from time to time under sub-section (6) of section 408 of the Act. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a member of the DDCA, states that the DDCA ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC105
1. This is.a reference application filed by the Collector under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on the direction of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. As per Sub-section (4) of Section 35E, the application is required to be heard and disposed of by this Tribunal as if it were an appeal.2. The respondents are a textile mill. The dispute in this deemed appeal is on what should be the value of the superfine cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics manufactured by the respondents and cleared during the period from November 1978 to March 1986.3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents sold their fabrics through their sister company, M/s. 3.K. Commercial Corporation Limited, who acted as the Sales Managers or selling organisation of the respondents. The respondents sold their entire out-put of the fabrics to four partnership firms of Kanpur : The partners of these firms were closely inter-related. These four firms, in turn, sold the entire out-put to only...
Ashok K. Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT622TriDel
1. The appellant is a Non-Resident Indian who imported a second hand Computer System from U.S.A. for using it in an industrial venture for the generation of computer soft-ware. He obtained an import licence to cover the goods and it appears that he paid for the goods out of his own resources. He filed a Bill of Entry to cover the goods on 1.6.1987, and the goods for which the application was filed were as follows : He declared a value of $ 8,500 and the assessable value of Rs. 1,27,444.2. The Customs did not accept the value and after issuing a show cause notice the Addl. Collector of Customs passed orders confiscating 8 Nos.work system, 5 Nos. terminals and 6 Nos. printers whose value was fixed at Rs. 5,29,450. In addition there were confiscated 2 Nos. Terminal T-7 valued at Rs. 12,497 and 1 No. PCB interface card valued at Rs. 2000 but the importer was given an option for redemption of all the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000. The Addl. Collector further imposed a penalty of...
Vijay Adhesive Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)(36)ELT185TriDel
On 22-7-1985, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' premises. They were found engaged in the manufacture of starch gum with the aid of power believed to fall under Central Excise Tariff Item 15C.On enquiry Shri R.H. Mehta, partner of the appellant firm stated in his written statement recorded on the spot that they had been manufacturing starch gum since the year 1973 and that the manufacture was of the two kinds i.e. one L.N. brand with the aid of power and the other HVS brand without the aid of power. They furnished sale figures from the year 1980-81 to 20-7-1985. He also stated that their main raw material was starch and the other raw materials were dextrine and borax. They had not obtained Central Excise licence for the manufacture of starch gum, nor had filed any declaration to that effect.On a reasonable belief that the said starch gum falls under Tariff Item 15C of the Central Excise Tariff (as it then stood) and manufactured with the aid of power quantity of 2200 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »