Delhi Court December 1989 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.
P.U. Abdul Rahiman Yousuf Abdul Rahiman Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi478
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of Union of India & Others the detention order dated February 13, 1989 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention or Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the declaration dated April 17, 1989, issued under Section 10(1) of the Act fixing the period of detention of the petitioner as two years from the date of the detention. (2) Counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition has urged that the declaration made under Section 10 of the Act was served only on July 4, 1989, Along with the copy of the confirmation order whereas the meeting of the Advisory Board had already taken place and thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to n,ake a representation against the declaration to the Advisory Board. These points have been taken in ground No. X and ground No. Xii in the writ pe...
Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(45)ELT521(Del)
M.K. Chawla, J.1. The petitioner herein is an industrial undertaking set up with the object of manufacturing decorative and industrial laminates. The main items of equipments required in the manufacture of decorative and industrial laminates are flat rectangular moulds, which are placed in and form an integral part of the hydraulic process. When layers of resin, impregnated papers are placed between the flat moulds, under the action of heat and pressure, a hard rigid product known as laminated sheet which is used for decorative and industrial purposes is formed depending upon the type of papers and residues used. These moulds are not available in India.2. The petitioner entered into a contract with one M/s. Associated Lumber & Trading Co. Ltd., Japan for the purpose of importing 60 moulds which in fact were shipped. The petitioners filed the bill of entry classifying the said moulds under Tariff Item No. 84.60. The Appraiser of Customs, however, classified the goods imported by the pet...
Collector of Customs Vs. Seethalakshmi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC96
1. The appellants have requested that it may be decided on merits in their absence vide their letter dated 28-8-1989.2. The Ld. JDR mentions that this (is) a case of a dispute regarding effective rate of duty on Cloves imported from specified areas in terms of Notification No. 431/76-Cus., dated 1-11-1976 as amended.3. The table annexed to this notification contains an entry 13 "cloves" showing the rate of duty "Rs. 22/-(sic) per kg. less 771/2%.4. The dispute was regarding interpretation of this expression regarding rate of duty.5. A view has been taken that 7 /2% means 7 1/2 ad valorem and that is the view of the appellants.6. It is the Department's view that 7 1/2% does not mean 71/2% ad volorem but 7 1/2% of the amount arrived at the rate of Rs. 20/- per kg., that is, the effective rate of duty is Rs. 18.50 per kg.7. The Tribunal had occasion to examine this issue in the case of Cart Land Exporter, Madras reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 435. The Tribunal had taken the view that 71/2%...
Swastik Paper Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC375Tri(Delhi)
1. We heard Shri Jain, Consultant in support of the 3 applications for rectification of mistakes and Shri Chakraborty in opposition. Shri Jain, the learned Consultant submitted that there are a number of errors in the impugned order and argued in detail about all of them.However, keeping in mind that when elaborate arguments are required on points, those cannot be errors apparent on the face of the record, we disregard the argumentative part of Shri Jain's submissions and we take up here only those alleged mistakes which at a glance can be verified from the record before us.2. The first error pointed out by Shri Jain is that in paragraphs 1,2,3(c) and (d) the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that Notification No. 264/67 was an independent Notification whereas it was in fact an amending Notification. Shri Jain invited our attention to paragraph 3 of the impugned order and submitted that Notification No. 264/67 reproduced therein was actually Notification No. 136/67 as amended by Notific...
Plastics and Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC212
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of moulds for dash board valued at Rs. 2,75,597/- clearance of which was sought against OGL Appendix 6 S.No. 6 of April-March (AM) 1985-88 Policy Book. The consignment was confiscated by the original adjudicating authority with an option to pay a fine of Rs. 1,35,6007- in lieu of confiscation on the ground that the appellants Small Scale Industries certificate (SSI) did not permit manufacture of dash boards. Therefore, the appellants could not be treated as actual users (industrial) who alone could import the moulds (within the terms of S.No. 6 Appendix 6 of OGL).2. It is admitted to the appellants that at the time of import i.e. on 15.5.87 their SSI certificate did not specifically mention dash board as an item of manufacture. Later on, however, w.e.f. 3.6.88 this item has also been included in the items of manufacture to be undertaken by them.3. Learned advocate for the appellants has urged that S.No. 6 of Appendix 6 reads as follows: ...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. G.D. Mahajan
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD445(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order dated 4-4-1988 of the learned Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals), Karnal, for the assessment year 1980-81. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in quashing the order of the Gift-tax Officer assessing the goodwill amount of Rs. 4,54,000 ignoring the deeming provisions of the Gift-tax Act which are applicable in this case.3. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. A firm known and styled as M/s. Mahajan Overseas came into existence on 17-1-1974. Its business consisted of purchase and export of various handlooms goods e.g. pillow shams, napkins, cotton and woollen durries, table mats etc.On 1-1-1977 the firm was reconstituted and four new partners including Smt. Raj Devi the assessee joined it and a minor (Miss Nishi Mahajan) was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Immediately prior to the reconstitution, the firm consisted of 9 partn...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.N.B. Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR420(Delhi)
Kirpal1. This petition is in respect of the assessment year 1979-80. The Tribunal has followed its earlier order for the year 1976-77 and in respect of which by order dated December 5, 1989, in ITC No. 126 of 1985 (CIT v. P.N.B. Finance and Industries Ltd., [1990] 185 ITR 340 (Delhi)), reference has been called for. 2. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court the following questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 17,87,979 was an admissible deduction in terms of section 36 of the Income-tax Act as a bad debt 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of interest for Rs. 7,55,816 ?' 3. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Kishan Mal Ladha Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR297(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. After hearing counsel for the parties, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,421 made by the Income-tax Officer under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the trade creditor recovering the sums due from the assessed from the broker who wrote off the dues in his books does not amount to cessation of liability in the hands of the assessed within the purview of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.N.B. Finance and Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR340(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The assessment year involved in this case is 1976-77. We have heard counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that questions of law do arise in this case. 2. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 17,50,000 was an admissible deduction in terms of section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 70,00,000 was advanced by the assessed in the ordinary course of lending business 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal perverse 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of Rs. 37,977 ?' 3. There will be nor order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sohan Lal Sita Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Del)27; [1990]184ITR337(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The aforesaid petitions under section 27(3) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, pertain to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78. 2. The respondent-assessed has a share in a residential house at Kanpur and the question involved is regarding the valuation of that house. It appears that, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax. Appellate Tribunal had determined the value of the property at Rs. 2,50,000, vide its order date January 29, 1981. This order has been followed by the Tribunal for the subsequent years including the years with which we are concerned in these petitions. 3. In respect of the year 1971-72, a comedy of errors seems to have occurred. The Tribunal had decided that appeal and against that an application under section 27(1) was filed. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal, six years ago, that is to say in 1983. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of that order was sent by the Tribunal to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »