Delhi Court July 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.
ishrat Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD381(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Ishrat Industries, Civil Lines, Rampur, objecting to the disallowance of a claim made by the assessee.The assessee is running a cold storage having two chambers. During the year under consideration wooden racks provided in one of the chambers, with the insulation, collapsed. To bring it to its original form and to make the chambers fit for cold storage, the assessee-firm spent a sum of Rs. 1,82,101. The assessee claimed the same as revenue expenditure in computing its income for the assessment year 1982-83. The ITO treated this amount as capital expenditure and disallowed the whole of it. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Moradabad. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreeing with the observations of the ITO upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the assessee filed a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. We have heard the parties at sufficient length, perused the relevant detail...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Chemopulp Tissues Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT71TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-appeal No.27-CE/MRT/85, dated 28.1.85, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. (the respondents to the present appeal), against the Assistant Collector's order dated 19.7.82.2. The question involved in the present appeal is whether wrapping paper produced out of pulp by the respondents and used in the factory of production (of such wrapping paper) for wrapping reels and reams of paper manufactured by the respondents is entitled to the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 62/82, dated 21.2.82.3. The Assistant Collector held that the wrapping paper was used merely for packing of reels and reams of paper and that it did not go into the manufacture of the latter and hence the benefit of the notification was not applicable. The Collector (Appeals) held otherwise.4. We have heard Shri V.M. Doiphode, SDR, for the appellant-...
S.K. Verma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi166; [1989]175ITR301(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution is by the owner of property bearing No. 4D62, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, against the order dated January 21, 1987, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he directed issue of appeal filed by the petitioner under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 m(for short 'the Act'), on the petitioner depositing tge amount ifs the property tax as required under section 170 of the Act. 2. The property in question was earlier owned by Ram Saroop, brother of the petitioner, who had purchased the same from the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner purchased this property from his brother. This sale deed is dated March 10, 1978. The petitioner, thereafter, it appears, reconstructed the whole of the property. It is now a 2 1/2 storeyed house and the plot of land underneath measures 85.9 sq. yds. 3. A notice under section 126 of the Act was issued to the petitioner ...
Srinivas Pal Vs. Union Territory Arunachal Pradesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: 1988RLR464
S.M. Mukharji, J.(1) On 20.11.76 the appellant was posted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as an Executive Engineer (Elect). An accident took place in the jeep which was alleged to have been driven by the appellant. The accident took place within the Bomdilo Police Station in Ar. P. In the said accident one of the occupants, J.K, Jain, Asstt. Eng. died and another S. Karim, driver sustained grievous injuries. According to the police the accident is attributable to rash and negligent driving of the appellant. As per the case file, R.B. Singh, S.I. submitted a report to the Deputy Comm. Bomdila on 22.11.76 who according to the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s 32(c) of Regulation I of 1945 and the police registered the case. The Magistrate held that cognizance was taken on 22.11.76. This finding, however, was not sustained by the High Court. I he police is alleged to have registered the case and took up investigations and submitted the chargesheet in Sept, 1977 which, howeve...
Sita Nagpal and anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Nijhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT238
P.K. Babri, J.(1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. challenging the eviction order dated September 22, 1987, of Shri M.S. Sabharwal, Additional Rent Controller, made on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Counsel who argued the case on behalf of the petitioners-tenants has challenged the eviction order on the following points, firstly, that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that premises in question is proved to have been let out for residential purposes only is perverse inasmuch as the Additional Rent Controller has approached the case in an illegal manner by not placing the burden of proof on the landlord to prove that in fact, the premises had been let out for residential purposes only and that he committed grave illegality in discussing the evidence of the parties on uneven scales. It has ...
Premier Soaps and Detergents Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC423Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order-in-original, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore has demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 57,678.25 on the value of clearances of detergent cakes in excess of Rs. 7.5 lakhs under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has also been imposed on the appellants under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Additional Collector has further held that the detergent cakes seized from the premises of the appellants on 24-3-1983 were liable to confiscation. As, however, the seized goods were provisionally released to the appellants on payment of Rs. 15,000/- with a cash security of Rs. 5,425/-, he appropriated an amount of Rs. 2,000/- out of the cash security.2. The charge against the appellants drawn by the Department was that they contravened the provisions of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rules 174, 9(1), 173-B, 173-C, 173-F...
Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC622Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal E/2186/89-A has been filed by the assessee and E/2346/90-A has been filed by the Department against Order-in-Original No. 11/89 dated 21.3.1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming the demand of differential duty on Air-Conditioners manufactured and cleared by the assessee during the period March, 1981 to May, 1985 and imposing penalty on the manufacturer.2. Assessee, engaged in the manufacture of Air-conditioners and Refrigerators was till 1980 selling around 98% of the manufactured goods to M/s. Lloyds Sales Corporation (in short, Lloyds) stated to be a sister concern and related person and selling 2% to hospitals and factories which were covered by exemption Notification No. 56/78. It appears that there were some factory gate sales to two or three dealers. Lloyds was selling the goods directly to consumers at prices much higher than the wholesale price charged to Lloyds and to other buyers at the factory gate. At the instance of the Department, ...
Rajeev Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT351TriDel
1. In all these 25 appeals the issue involved is common. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The question involved in all these appeals relates to the interpretation of ITC policy for 1985-88. All the appellants concerned herein imported Synthetic Rags which were described in the Bill of Entry filed by each of them as "premutilated synthetic rags" or "completely premutilated synthetic rags" according to the relative invoices. The appellants herein, the importers, claimed clearance under OGL as listed against Sl. No. 418, List 8, Part-I, Appendix-6 of the Import Policy. "418. Woollen rags/synthetic rags/shoddy wool in complete premutilated form only".Condition No. 37 (at page 168 of he said policy) further governing the import of such rags under OGL was as below:- "(37). (i) Import of woollen rags/shoddy wool/synthetic rags will be allowed only when these are imported in completely premutilated condition. (a) "New waste woollen cloth whe...
Pay and Accounts Officer (Ew) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD403(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax T-Range, New Delhi, dated 6-11-1985 relating to assessment year 1984-85. The grievance of the assessee is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of law there was no justification in creating a liability of Rs. 4,944 against the assessee under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This grievance of the assessee arises out of the following factual background.2. The assessee before us is Delhi Development Authority through the Pay and Accounts Officer, Engineering Wing. The Pay and Accounts Officer was required to deduct tax from the salaries paid to the employees of the DDA and pay the same into the Govt. treasury as required under law. The assessee had thereafter to file a return under Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 showing salaries paid to the employees and the tax deducted thereon. On examination of suc...
Kidar Nath Sodhi Vs. T.R. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT408
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated November 5, 1985, passed by Shri G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) Mr. R K. Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant, has challenged this eviction order only on one point that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises had been let out to the petitioner-tenant for residential purpose only is perverse and so, the same should be set aside. The findings of the Additional Rent Controller that the respondent is the landlord-owner of the premises in question and the said premises are required by him for occupation as residence and also for his family members dependent upon him and he is not in possession of any reasonably alternative suitable residential accommodation,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »