Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 11 of about 110 results (0.011 seconds)Suraj Pershad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1990)DLT212
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Pursuant to the Resolution No. 813 dated 29th August, 1985 passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi thereby accepting the recommendation of its Commissioner to acquire the land of the petitioner for public purpose, the matter was placed before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The General Body of the MCD. vide its Resolution No. 661 accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee and accorded the approval to acquire the land measuring 250 sq. yds. each bearing plot No. 1 & 2 comprised in Khasra No. 286 Mauja Tihar known as Ajay Enclave belonging to the petitioner. (2) Petitioner Along with Shri Ram Dularey had purchased plots No. 1, 2, 7 & 8 in Kharsa No. 286 vide registered sale deed dated 28th November, 1953. Subsequently, by oral partition the petitioner became sole owner of plots No. 1 & 2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi wanted to raise boundary wall on these plots which was objected by the petitioner by f...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC334Tri(Delhi)
1. Out of these three applications, E/ROM/57/90-D and E/Stay/2338/90-D have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. The miscellaneous application No. E/Misc./661/90-D has been filed by M/s.Kanpur Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd., who are the appellants in the matter.2. We have heard the learned advocate and the learned SDR on the three applications. At the outset, the learned SDR has filed a copy of letter No. F. No. 385/1228/90-JC, dated 28th August, 1990 written by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, (Judicial Cell), New Delhi, to the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, a copy of which was endorsed to the Senior Departmental Representative, Special Bench-D, CEGAT. The contents of this letter are reproduced below: "Please refer to your letter No. IV/239/Review/90, dated 31-7-1990 addressed to Commissioner (Review) CBEC, New Delhi containing your comments on the Tribunal's order cited supra.. The Tribunal Order No. E/400/90-D dated 21-6-1990 in the case of M/s. Kanpur Bot...
Tag this Judgment!Nelco (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD224(Delhi)
1. The only dispute raised in this appeal, filed by the assessee, for assessment year 1984-85, relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,240 under 37(3A) to (3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Income-tax Officer, while making disallowance under Section 37(3A) took into account the following expenses :- (i) Samples Rs. 3,115 (ii) Advertisement Rs. 34,217 (iii) Free samples Rs. 6,414 (iv) Car expenses Rs. 29,051 (v) Commission Rs. 14,610 (vi) Export promotion expenses Rs. 57,030 (vii) Business promotion expenses Rs. 2,247 ------------- 3. The Income-tax Officer accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 9,348 being 20% of the amount of Rs. 1,46,684. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) held that assessee would be entitled to relief in regard to an amount of Rs. 544 spent in New York. This resulted in a relief of Rs. 108.While rejecting the assessee's claim the CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the expenses incurred outside India were to be excluded for the purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A) a...
Tag this Judgment!Parkash Kaur Vs. Everest Construction Company
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi500; 1991RLR19
Mahinder Narajn, J. (1) By this order,I propose to deal with the interim application I.A. No. 277 of 1989, whereby the plaintiff & seeks an order of injunction again me defendant, restraining the de.endant from entering into any agreement with respect to flat No. 606 in 'Resham Tower', a building proposed to be constructed at Prabha Devi, Bomby. The alleged agreement to ell on the basis of which the injunction is sought was dated 13-10-1981. (2) By my order dated 2-2-1989. I granted injunction sought initially. (3) The mater has to be finally disposed of now. (4) I have heard counsel for both the parties at length. At an earlier stage, when the matter came up before me for determining the preliminary issue regarding want of jurisdiction of this Court, by my order dated 18-9-1990., I have held that this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the suit as filed. I.A. No. 277 of 1989 was not dealt with by me at that time at the request of counsel. (5) Mr. P. C. Khanna has not been able to bri...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Imports and Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC186Tri(Delhi)
1. The above application under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 seeks waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,29,023.05 and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs levied & imposed by the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, upon caps manufactured out of synthetic & woollen rags exported in contravention of the export policy and DEEC Scheme, under which the goods for export should have been manufactured out of 100% acrylic fibre imported by the applicants.2. We have heard Shri B.B. Gujral, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Dhingra, learned SDR for the Department.3. The main thrust of the argument is that the principles of natural justice have been flagrently violated in as much as the valuable right of cross-examination of witnesses whose opinions & reports have been relied upon by the Department, has not been afforded to the applicants, in spite of several requests in writing in this regard. Our attention has been drawn to the reply to the show cause notice, hande...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lala Dewan Chand Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]190ITR451(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that construction of flats on 30, Ferozeshah Road, and selling them on profit is not a business activity but is a conversion of a capital asset from one form to another ?' 2. The respondent is a public charitable trust. It had a building at 30, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi, which was demolished and a multi-storeyed building was constructed. A part of the building so constructed was sold. The Tribunal was found as a fact that, as a result of this transaction, the trust has got modern premises in place of the old and there was no profit motive involved. The Tribunal has observed that it was a case of conversion of an old building into a modern building. We informed that the surplus which is available with the trust is used for public charitable purposes. In order to have a modern building, it was necessary that par...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ram Memorial Foundation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]190ITR334(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in accepting the assessed's miscellaneous application in respect of its earlier order dated January 5, 1983 in Income-tax Application No. 2039/Delhi of 1981 when such order was conclusive on the issue involved, and to refer the same to the President for decision and thereby reopening the question of taxability of Rs. 5,200 which has already been concluded by the order dated January 5, 1983 ?' 2. The question arose with regard to the applicability of section 13(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Judicial Member held that the assessed was not entitled to exemption from tax with regard to taxability of interest of Rs. 5,200 which it received because the loan had been granted without adequate security. The Accountant Member passed a separate order and with regard to this question he observed that 'the in...
Tag this Judgment!Bhati Devi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT297
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner is engaged in the trade and business activity of importing and dealing in spices. She has filed the present petition praying for the grant of the following reliefs : - '(A)issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and subordinates to issue Import licenses for the import of cloves cassia/cinnamon on the pending applications before them only on the basis of the current import policy in force; (b) issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents, their servants, agents, subordinates to first process the applications which are pending for the licensing years 1988-89 in accordance with the current Import policy in force and after the expiry of the utilisation period of the same the applications pending for the licensing years 1989-90 be also processed in accordance with the current import policy in force ; (c) issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ order or ...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(1)Crimes168; 42(1990)DLT601; 1991(20)DRJ50
Arun B. Sabarya, J.(1) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the petitioners have prayed that proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code initiated by the Special Executive Magistrate by a notice dated 22nd of September 1989 with respect to each of them be quashed. (2) The petitioners have challenged the proceeding on the ground that the impugned notices were issued in a mechanical manner, on cyclostyled. forms, and without application of mind. (3) In view of the nature of challenge raised by the petitioners, record of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate were called for and have been examined. (4) The two petitioners are employees of respondent No. 6. According to them, the proceedings under Sections 107 - and 151 of the Code have been initiated at the instance of their employer, by way of victimisation, on account of their active participation in an agitation in respect of an industrial dispule. ...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT168
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This application under Section 256(2) has been filed in which it is contended that the following question should be referred : 'WHETHER,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reference application filed by the respondent was not late as per the provisions of sec. 256(2) of the Act ?'(2) Briefly stated the facts are that penalty proceedings had been initiated and penalty levied on the petitioner herein. An appeal was filed and the same was allowed by the Cit (Appellate). The department thereafter filed second appeal to the Income Tax Tribunal, but without any success. The department then filed a reference application under Section 256(1). Vide order dated 5th December, 1989 the application of the department was dismissed on the ground that no question of law arose. It may here be stated that application had been filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner herein requiring the Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!