Delhi Court May 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.
Surinder Mohan Hans Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD269(Delhi)
ORDERPer J. Kathuria, AM - This is an appeal filed by the assessed and arises out of the AAC, New Delhi order dated 31-1-1986. Though that order relates to assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80, the present appeal is directed against the AACs order, for the assessment year 1976-77 only.2. Though the assessed has taken as many as three ground, in substance, he is challenging the making of the order after the expiry of the limitation period.3. The brief facts of the case are, that the assessed did not file any return under section 139(1) for the assessment year 1976-77. No notice under section 139(2) was issued to the assessed. On 29-3-1979, the ITO issued a notice under section 148 by registered letter. This was served o the assessed on 3-5-79. After the issue of notice under section 148 and before its service, the assessed filed return of income on 30-3-79, purporting to be a return under section 139(4). The ITO passed the order of assessment on 28-2-1983. The assesseds contention was t...
Khatau Makanji Spg. and Wvg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC70Tri(Delhi)
1. The applicants have made a prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 46,39,846.05 paise and penalty of Rs. 14 lakhs by order No. 227/88 dated 18th November 1988. The Bench had ordered the applicants to deposit Rs. 19 lakhs in cash within 8 weeks from the date of the order. The applicants did not comply with the terms of that order and applied for extension of time. In the interest of justice the Bench vide its Miscellaneous Order No. 3/89-A, dated 13-1-1989 had extended the time and had ordered that the applicants shall comply with the order by 7-2-1989 and the matter would come up for mention on 10-2-1989 and in case the applicants did not comply with the terms of that order the appeal was liable to be dismissed in terms of the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants had again applied for extension of time vide their application dated 28-1-1989 duly supported by an affidavit sworn before the Notary Public and the said miscella...
G.K. Medical Stores Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC21Tri(Delhi)
1. these three appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal No. M.Cus 1023 to 1026/86, dated 30-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras.2. We have heard Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri S. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent Collector and have perused the record.3. Two issues have been urged before us for determination. The first is whether the goods imported, namely, 'Acrylic Plastic Offouts' in the case of Nako Plast and 'Acrypoly' a brand of acrylic sheets, were eligible for the benefit of exemption from additional duty of customs by virtue of Notification No. 38/73-CE, dated 1-3-1973 issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The second issue (which is urged as an alternative to the first issue) is whether the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 71/71, dated 29-5-1971 would be available in the matter of levy of additional duty of customs in respect of these goods.4. The impugned orde...
Balvinder Kaur Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC730Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant herein has been taken as a legal representative of Shri Harjeet Singh after the demise of the latter for pursuance of the appeal filed by late Shri Harjeet Singh. 2.1. Preventive Officers of Customs, Kanpur, searched the residential premises of Shri Harjeet Singh. During the search two Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) Model No. NV 300 and NV 340 alongwith 46 video recorded cassettes all of foreign origin valued at Rs. 37150/- in all were recovered. On demand, Shri Rana Singh, brother of late Shri Harjeet Singh produced two baggage receipts Nos. 148260 dated 27-8-83 in the name of Shri Shashi Bhushan from Delhi Airport and 216041 dated 30-01-84 issued in the name of Moosa Yusif Hussain from Bombay Airport. In support of lawful acquisition/possession of the said VCRs. He also produced two invoices Nos. 1515 dated 30-7-84 of M/s. Nam Dhari Electricals, Dewan Hall Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and another invoice No. S/51-0333 dated 7-7-84 of M/s. Video Sonics Company, Defenc...
Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT233
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) This order will dispose of C.Ws. 1373-75/89, 1376/89. 1378-79/89, 1377/89, 1112-13/89. 1126/89, 1281/89, 1065-71/89.2823/88,51/89, 388/89.907/89,903/89,945/89,965/89, 1008-9/89, 1598/88, 1252-58'89,1250/89. 894/89, 517/89, 518/89. 495/89. 545/89, 569/89, 578/89, 980-88/89,989-992/89. 2602/88, 2601/88, 2842/88, 2841/88. 2840/8U, 2813/88, 2814./88.2815/88.2816/88,2817/88, 1114-1121/89 1114-1121/89 , 1082-83/89, 1081/89, 1072-79/89,1386/89, 1362/89, 1380/89. Proceedings 5A of the Land Acquisition Act right up to the stage of Award relating to villages, namely. Khan Pur, Deoli Devii. Tugbiakabad, Khirkee, Neb Sarai, Said-ula Ajaib, Tigri, ShayoorPur, Satbari, Chattar Pur, Raj Pur Khurd, Maidan Ghari, have been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta v. U.O.I. C.W.P.1639/1985 decided on 14/10/1988/l 8/11/1988. Prayer of the petitioners is that in spite of that Judgment, the respondents are trying to take possession of the land.(2) The Delhi Administra...
Smt. Raja Devi Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD285(Delhi)
ORDERPer S. K. Jain, Judicial Member - The assessed, Smt. Raja Devi spent Rs. 40,000 in performance of marriages of her two grand daughters (sons daughters), namely, Ms. Rachna and Ms. Sippy in December 1982. She also paid an air-ticket of Rs. 7,840 for Ms. Sushma. In the opinion of the IAC of Gift-tax (Assessment) the said marriage expenditure of Rs. 40,000 and air-ticket of Rs. 7,840 amounted to gift by Smt. Raja Devi. He, thereforee, issued notice under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act to the assessed calling upon her to furnish gift-tax return. The assessed filed NIL return. However, the IAC of Gift-tax (Assessment) treated the said expenditure as gift and accordingly completed the assessment. The assessed was unsuccessful in appeal before the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals). Hence this second appeal.2. The stand of the assessed has been that there was no gift for the expenses incurred for performance of marriages of grand daughters and the travailing expenses incurred for anot...
Bharuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC262Tri(Delhi)
1. In this stay application the applicants have prayed for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 81,570/- and penalty of Rs. 45,000/- and stay of recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeals.2. We have heard Shri Gujral, learned Advocate, for the applicants and Shri Doiphode, learned S.D.R. for the Respondent. Shri Gujral has stated that the appeals filed by the applicants before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta were rejected by him for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has argued that in Column 6 of the Appeal Memorandum in CA-1 form filed before the Collector (Appeals), the applicants stated that application for dispensing with pre-deposit was being made separately.This appeal was received in the office of the Collector (Appeals) on 17-11-1988. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants on 30-12-1988 stating that the applicants did not file separate application for dispensing with pre-d...
Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC340
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Needle Cages described in the Bill of Entry as components for gear box assembly and the same were assessed the duty under Tariff Heading 84.62 (3) as applicable at the relevant time. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty as assessed. Thereafter, they filed the refund claim claiming the benefit of Notification 179/80 dated 4-9-1980 under which the goods which are component parts of the machinery specified in the Notification and falling under Heading 87.01(1) of the Customs Tariff were exempted.2. The benefit of notification is available subject to the condition that the authorities, mentioned in the subject part of the publication, are satisfied and certified in each case, the parts, in question, or will be required for the purpose, specified and recommended the grant of the exemption.3. Secondly, the importer, in terms of this notifi...
Sansar Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes508; 38(1989)DLT338; 1989(17)DRJ108
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner is challenging the detention order made on July 7, 1988 by specially empowered officer of the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred! to as 'the Ordinance'. The order was passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, against the petitioner (the detenu) with a view to preventing him from conspiring in the furtherence of export from India of Psychotropic substances. The petitioner is further seeking quashing of the declaration made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India on August 10, 1988 under Section 10 of the Ordiannce. The petitioner filed a' representation to the Central Government on July 28. 1988 seeking copies of certain documents in Hindi to enable him to make an effective representation. It appears from the counter affidavit that this representation was rejected by the Finance Min...
P.C. Bohra and ors. Vs. National Sports Club of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1989
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas333(Delhi); ILR1990Delhi618
The plaintiff members of the defendant Club, had taken objection to two notices issued by the Club Secretary General: (1) and undated notice purporting to convene an Ordinary General Meeting on 18-2-1989 (at Delhi) inter alias for considering and approving further amendments to the Amended Rules and Regulation of the Club. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying that the notices be declared null & void and defendant be restrained from holding the two meetings. They also filed an application fro ad-interim injunction.The plaintiffs contended inter alias that the Executive Council had not authorised the Secretary General to convene the O. G. M. on 18-2-1986; that the Executive Council had authorised on E. O. M. for 29-1-1989, which had not been held, and that thereforee Secretary General could not, even under authority of Central Council, call for an E. O. G. M. on another date i.e. 18-2-1989.Dismissing the Application, the CourtHeld:1. All members of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »