Delhi Court January 1990 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Rescon Manufacturing Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC158
1. The Revenue has sought for restoration of order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay in order dated 5-10-1984 by setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 30-8-1985 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The short question involved in this appeal is whether classification of imported goods, namely Ceramic Pythagoras tubes for the purpose of C.V. duty falls under Item 23(B)(4) of the CET or not The Customs House had held the view that the imported Ceramic Pythagoras tubes are correctly classifiable for the purpose of C.V. duty under Item 23(B) (4) of CET. The Asstt. Collector while confirming the assessment had mentioned that Item 23(B) had been mentioned against heading 69.03 of the Customs Tariff. Therefore, the Asstt. Collector held that imported goods having been assessed to Customs duty under heading 69.03, were classifiable to C.V. duty under Item 23-B of the CET.3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) has disagreed with the view taken by the Assis...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Waterproof
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC182Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Baroda has preferred this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay issued on 24-3-1986 by which he had allowed the appeal of the respondents before him by holding that Bituminised waterproof paper manufactured by the respondents is not liable to Central Excise duty.The facts briefly are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Bituminised waterproof paper from duty-paid paper falling under Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. They filed a refund application claiming refund of Rs. 1,11,254.04 on the ground that the processing of duty paid paper for conversion into bituminised paper did not amount to manufacture and that they are not liable to pay duty on bituminised waterproof paper again. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim against which an appeal was preferred before the Collector (Appeals) who allowed the appeal on the ground that bonding kraft paper with bitumen would not amo...
Hardayal Singh Mehta and Another Vs. M.C.D. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi170
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 24th of May, 1989 of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 347A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Two questions have arisen in this case. First, whether the Appellate Tribunal has any inherent power to add a party, except the Corporation and its officers, in an appeal under Section 343 of the Act. Secondly, whether the impugned order to add respondent No. 4 as a party to the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 343 of the Act is in accordance with law.2. The petitioners are husband and wife. Since 1978, they are in occupation of part of property No. 1373, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the first and second floor, hereinafter referred to as the property, as tenants. Respondent No. 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is its Zonal Engineer. Respondent No. 3 is the Tribunal. Respondent ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sita Ram Arvind Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR431(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner has proposed the following question of law to this court for being referred to it by the Tribunal: 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the annual letting value of the assessed's share in the property at 7/184, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur, is to be taken at Rs. 2,400 as shown by the assessed without considering the fact that the annual letting value was determined by the Income-tax Officer with reference to the value for purposes of section 9(2A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation, Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972?' 2. The question involves the determination of the annual letting value of property No. 7/184, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. The Income-tax Officer sought to assessed the value of the said house at Rs. 23,140. An appeal was filed against this and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the corre...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR393(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. These are two petitions in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 wherein the common question of law which is sought to be raised as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the value of the property at No. 34, Najafgarh Road, should be taken at Rs. 51,728 as against Rs. 4,08,212 taken on the basis of the assessment of the other co-owner, Shri R. K. Gupta ?' 2. The Wealth-tax Officer has valued the share of the assessed in respect of 34, Najafgarh Road, at Rs. 4,08,212. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced this to Rs. 51,728 purporting to follow the case of another co-owner, namely, that of Shri Hans Raj Gupta and Shri R. K. Gupta. The Department went up in appeal but without success. 3. The finding of fact as recorded by the Tribunal is that, in the case of other co-owners, their 1/4th share has been valued at Rs. 51,728 and it is the same v...
Dr. Subhas Chandra Reddy Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC371Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.C. 3/1263/82 dated 27-9-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Madras.2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to allowance of depreciation in respect of the appellant's Car imported into India. The appellant has purchased 'Olds-MOBILE-DELTA 1980 Model Car in October, 1980 when he was working as Doctor in U.S.A. and at the time of his departure from U.S.A. in the month of July, 1981 he handed over the Car to his cousin with a request to book the same after he landed in India.He came to India on 11-7-1981 and the Car was shipped in Vessel in October, 1981 and actually landed at Madras on 5-11-1981. At the time of assessment the appellant claimed depreciation for 5 quarters but Assistant Collector of Customs allowed the depreciation for three quarters holding that 'as per Practice' the depreciation can be allowed from the date of registration to the date of departure of the Importer which...
Arjun Dass and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR118(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner had claimed deduction of some amount which had been paid in terms of partnership deed to four persons. These four persons were Saroj Kumar, who was a partner of the firm, and three minors who had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The payment was made to them pursuant to a fresh partnership deed which had been drawn up, excluding the said four persons from the said firm. The question which arose for consideration before the Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was whether this payment is allowable as revenue expenditure or not. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have observed that the payment was in the nature of rent which was paid and the payment which was made was in excess of the standard rent which could be fixed under section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This was one of the grounds for disallowing the payment mad...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR297(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions of law to this court: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of difference in market rent and rent actually paid in respect of property at 19, Tuglak Road, New Delhi? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the trust by allowing the trust property to be used by the trustees did not infringe the provisions of section 13 and thereby entitle it to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act? 2. It appears that the respondent is the owner of a house No. 19, Tuglak Road, New Delhi. Two of the trustees are living in the said house. The Income-tax Officer computed the market rent of the said house and added the difference between the market rent so calculated and the rent which was being actually paid in the hands of the respondent. ...
Ved Parkash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)Crimes212; 41(1990)DLT62
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) (RULE D.B.) Gianender Kumar, complainant, and his brother Surender Babu, deceased, Along with one Ram Sewak were residing on the first floor of house No.A-756, Shastri Nagar since 1977 as tenant of one Shri Chandgi Ham. Ved Parkash, appellant is the nephew of Shri Chandgi Ram and was residing in the same building The landlord and his nephew wanted their tenant to vacate the room and had extended threats from time to time. On 25th October, 1985 i.e. prior to the date of incident, Ved Parkash had again threatened and tried to forcibly evict the tenants against which action, a report was duly lodged. (2) Narrating the incident, Gianender Kumar in his Statement, Ex. Public Witness -1/A made before the Police and while appearing as one of the prosecution witnesses staled that -on the night between 24-25th December, 1985, at about 11 P.M., he Along with his brother Surender Babu was present in their room. Surender Babu was dressing up to go to his Home-guard duty. Ved Par...
Drillco Metal Carbides Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC450Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 24-12-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, Bombay Custom House dated 23-9-1981 denying the appellants herein, the claim for abatement from duty as a result of damage to the materials imported by them. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported a consignment of 17 bundles of Hollow Drill Steels by Steamer 'Vishva Bandhan' under original Bill of Entry No. 1591, dated 24-11-1977 from Sweden. The steamer over-carried the consignment to Calcutta and ultimately it was traced and brought back to Bombay in two lots of five bundles and 12 bundles. According to the appellants, the Hollow Drill Steels are used for making drilling rods for mining applications. Since the consignment had been exposed to the weather conditions and was found to have been rusted, a joint survey was done on 2-8-1978 which included an officer from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »