Delhi Court February 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.
Ram Chand Ram Kishen Chawla Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: (1992)40ITD141(Delhi)
1. The assessee, by the present appeal, challenges the order dated February 6, 1986, of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, for the assessment year 1976-77, inter alia, on the following effective and comprehensive ground ; " That the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 10,214 levied by the learned Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts op the case " 2. In this case, a return declaring nil income was filed on July 28, 1980. It was mentioned in the return that due to disputes amongst the partners, no business was done. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on March 26, 1981, declaring a total income of Rs. 40,400 on an estimate basis. Thereafter, a revised return was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 18,400. Books of account were not produced during the assessment proceedings and only purchase and sale vouchers were produced from which the learne...
Kulwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1433; 1990(1)Crimes300; ILR1989Delhi244
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner, Kulwant Singh, challenges the legality of the order passed on July 6, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under S. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (in short the Ordinance). The order was made with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in possession and sale of narcotic drugs. The grounds of detention also dt. the July 6, 1988 were served on the detenu on July 7, 1988 while he was in judicial custody at Central Jail, Tihar. 2. A number of pleas have been taken in the petition but before us it is the plea urged in the additional affidavit filed on December 20, 1988, which has been pressed. The argument is that the representation made by the detenu seeking revocation of the impugned order has been considered and rejected by Shri K. L. Verma. The plea is that it was required under the law to be considered by the appropriate Government, ...
Kulwant J. Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT22
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The Petitioner, Kulwant Singh, challenges the legality of the order passed on July 6, 1988 by Shri K.L.Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (in short the Ordinance). The order was made with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in possession and sale of narcotic drugs. The grounds of detention also dated the July 6, 1988 were served on the detenu on July 7, 1988 while he was in judicial custody at Central Jail, Tihar. (2) A number of pleas have been taken in the petition but before us it is the plea urged in the additional affidavit filed on December 20, 1988, Which has been pressed. The argument is that the representation made by the detenu seeking revocation, of the impugned order has been considered and rejected by Shri K.L. Verma. The plea is that it was required under the law to be considered by the appropriate Gove...
Lalit Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi238
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this writ petition Lalit Kumar is seeking issuance of a writ for quashing the impugned detention order passed on 5th March, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Cofeposa Act) directing that the petitioner be detained in Central Jail, Amritsar. The order was made with 'a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. Till today that order has not been executed. (2) A number of grounds have been urged in the petition but before us only two contentions were raised, i.e. 1.That the retraction statement of one Narinder Kumar against whom also an order of detention was passed on the very grounds which are the basis of the detention order in the present case, was not placed before the detaining authority prior to the issuance of the order; and 2.That the respo...
Delhi Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Kamlesh Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC15
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the D.T.C. claiming that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is incorrect. There is a cross appeal also claiming the enhancement of compensation. In the claim petition the claimants had claimed a sum of Rs. 9,97,844/- as compensation. The facts of the accident and the liability of the offending vehicle are not disputed. The question now is only of the quantum of compensation. The accident took place on 20-9-1971. The deceased was 35 years old at that time and was earning Rs. 1158/- as an employee of Siemens India. The Tribunal held that the family dependency was to the extent of Rs. 800/- and applying the multiplier of 15 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/-. The Tribunal thereafter made deductions to the extent of Rs.44,000/- due to uncertainties and payments of lump sum. The counsel for the appellants could not convince me as to why the compensation should not b...
Bhoj Raj Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC195
S.B. Wad, J.1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle No. DLP-4997 which caused the accident on 13-7-1977 resulting into the death of Shri K.B. Subramanian. Relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses PW-2, Lalit Mohan and PW-7 Gopi Chand and further looking into the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who prepared the site plan and also seeing the photographs, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently. I have also been taken through the evidence and I do not find that the finding of fact of the Tribunal is in any way unreasonable or perverse. The appreciation of evidence is quite correct. The finding is, thereforee, confirmed.2. The next question is of quantum. The deceased was a Divisional Engineer in Microwave Survey, under the Tele Communication Project, Northern Zone, New Delhi. Considering his salary the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the annual dependency was Rs. 14,400/-. The de...
Tata Yodogawa Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC361Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The brief facts of the case are that on a check of the appellants RG-1 and RG-23 account registers, they were found to be having an excess balance in their RG-23, Part II account.This amount was treated as excess credit after taking into consideration the closing balance of the stock of raw materials and the closing balance of the steel ingots manufactured from the same on the date of the check. The appellants were restrained from utilising this excess amount as this could not be related to the stock position of the input and the output manufactured out of the inputs. The Appellate Collector has observed that since the duty chargeable on the input and the output was the same, the excess credit should not have been there.He has held that as a part of the claim of credit of 56A procedure, the intention was to give the relief in regard to double taxation to the assessees and it was not intended to ...
Singapore Colour Centre Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC148Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Singapore Colour Centre, Madras have filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras.Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants had filed Bill of entry for the clearance of goods. The description of the goods in the Bill of Entry was given as 'Four sets of Second-hand KIS brand Still PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESSING AND PRINTING EQUIPMENT'. The appellants had declared the value of the goods at Rs. 1,06,146.00 on the basis of the invoice No. PC 0202/87 dt. 2nd Feb., 1987 issued by M/s. Premier Commercial Enterprises in favour of the importers. In the invoice the value of the goods was shown as US $ 8,000/- GIF Madras and the description was given as :- "Four sets of Second-hand KIS brand still photography processing and Printing Equipment." The equipment is stated in the OGL APP. 1 Part B List 8 Item No. 39 of Import Export Policy 1985-88. The goods are in very good condition and as per your order dt. 12-12-86. The equipments comprise th...
Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto (P.) Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD514(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi made under Section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1983-84 on 27-3-1987. The contention of the assessee is that issuance of the notice under Section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 and the subsequent completion of the proceedings terminating in the passing of the impugned order under Section 16 of the Act is without jurisdiction, because the Id. Commissioner was legally wrong in holding that the order passed by the IAC (Assessment), New Delhi under Section 6(2) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. On this issue, we have heard the parties and carefully considered their rival submissions.However, before we come to deal with the rival submissions, we record the factual backdrop of the case on the basis of which the Commissioner made the impugned order.2. The a...
Lachman Dass Bakshi Ram Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD633(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 28-3-1988 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee is M/s Lachman Dass Bakshi Ram, Gohana (Sonepat)--a registered firm which derives its income from dealing in the purchase and sale of timber goods. The assessee had filed its return on 31-7-1984 declaring an income of Rs. 41,620. The Income-tax Officer had given a notice dated 18-1-1985 to the assessee to which the assessee gave a reply dated 20-3-1985. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on 29-8-1985.3. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax noticed that a survey had taken place on 10-10-1984 under Section 133A on the business premises of the assessee-firm after it had filed its return for the assessment year in question and that as a result of the same the Income-tax Officer had identified cash book, ledger and certain loose papers relevant to the period 1-3-1983 to 31-3-1984 which were later impounde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »