Delhi Court December 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.
i.D. Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD445(Delhi)
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT under Section 263 in respect of the assessment year 1986-87.2. The assessee is working as Development Officer in LIC. During the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1985-86, apart from his salary and conveyance allowance, he had also received Rs. 44,117 as Incentive Bonus. The assessee claimed that the conveyance allowance and the additional conveyance allowance both were exempt. He had also claimed that 50% of the Incentive Bonus should be excluded from the assessment. The returns were filed accordingly which is accepted by the ITO.3. The CIT was of the opinion that the order of the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. He held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(74) in respect of additional conveyance allowance should be considered in the background of the instructions from the CBDT which was not done. With regard to the deduction of 50% of the Incentive Bonus the CIT held ...
Mrs Satwant Narang Vs. Appropriate Authority, I T Dept., New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Del)163
M.K. Chawla, J.1. In this petition, a very short but interesting question of law has arisen. The question posed is whether the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') is only limited to either pass an order within the specified period for purchase of property by the Central Government for consideration recorded in the agreement, or assigning a no objection certificate for transfer at that consideration; or 2. Whether the appropriate authority is to take the document at its face value, or can also determine its validity and legality by looking into the various other enactments like the Wealth-tax Act, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, etc. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the owner of a freehold immovable property measuring 2,521.5 sq. ads. being plot No. A of property No. 101, Friends Colony, New Delhi. The said plot has a dwelling house, servan...
Sushila Devi Vs. Nathu Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: II(1991)BC385; 43(1991)DLT300
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated August 22, 1983, passed by the learned additional district Judge, whereby, the suit of petitioner, was adjourned sine die. (2) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case, are, petitioner, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 47,500.00 , on the basis of the mortgage, in respect of property No 3939, Ward No. Xiv, Basti Imli, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and also prayed that the decretal amount, be realised by sale of the mortgaged property. (3) Petitioner alleged that respondent no. 1 (defendant no. 1 in suit also) had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25.000.00 , on December 2, 1969, from petitioner, and in consideration thereof, executed a mortgage deed, on the same day, in respect of the aforesaid property. The Mortgage Deed was duly registered on December 8,1969. Respondent no. 2, who is husband of respondent no. I, stood surety. (4) The Mortgage Deed, contained an arbitration clause. According to petitioner, disputes...
Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Gujarat Phenolic Synthetics (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT419TriDel
1. The Revenue has sought for setting aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in the order-in-appeal dated 28-8-90. In this order, the Collector (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original No.13/84 dated 13-2-84.2. The assessee are manufacturers of P.F. moulding powder and P.F.resin falling under Tariff item 15A(1) of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the above products were assessed under item 15A(1) as per the classification list No. 4/83 dated 30-6-1983 filed by them and approved by the proper officer on 17-10-83.3. They filed a fresh classification list bearing No. 16/83 and declared P.F. resins as falling under item 15A(1) of C.E.T. and P.F.Moulding Powder in the Col. No. 7 of the classification list as other goods produced or manufactured claiming that goods mentioned in Co. No.7 i.e. P.F. Moulding powder is not leviable to further duty since it is manufactured from P.F. resins and there was no manufacturing process involved. This classific...
Rohone Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC246
1. The issue in both the appeals being the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, after hearing both sides, we allowed the application filed by the appellants for change of the name of the appellants in the cause title from "May & Baker (India) Limited" to "Rhone Poulenc (India) Limited".3. The appellants imported "PHOLCODINE B.P., a narcotic drug, on which the customs authorities levied additional duty of customs corresponding to the central excise duty leviable on goods falling under Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('CET', for short) read with the provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (M.T.P. Act, for short). The appellants filed claims for refund of the said duty on the ground that the goods being a bulk drug were exempted from payment of additional duty of customs in terms of Central Excise Exemption Notification No. 234/82 and 234/86...
Ubs Publishers Distributors Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD457(Delhi)
1 The assessee, a Public Ltd. Company, has raised two issues in this appeal. The assessee has a business in printing and publishing books.2. The first issue is the computation of disallowance under Section 37(2A). The Assessing authority found that Rs. 1,65,846 have been debited as sales promotion expenditure. But the details show that Rs. 1,48,750 were really entertainment expenditure. He further found that another amount of Rs. 84,926 has been shown as expenditure of the export department. This was also in reality entertainment expenditure.Thus, the total amount of entertainment expenditure was found to be Rs. 2,33,676. After allowing statutory deduction of Rs. 5,000, he disallowed Rs. 2,28,676.3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) agreed that most of the expenditure debited at the Head Office as well as branches at Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore and Calcutta, were incurred in providing tea, coffee etc., to the visitors and customers. However, this expenditure was only Rs. 2,21,490. He upheld th...
Shah Paper Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT741TriDel
1. The question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the consignment of "both side coated white card board" 23" x 36" and 22" x 28" 210 Gsm (in the case of Shah Paper Co.) and 22" x 28" 300 Gsm (in the case of M/s. Rakesh Bros.) both of Yugoslavian origin was entitled to exemption from duty at the occasional rate of 50% under the Indo-U.A.E. - Yugoslavia Trade Agreement. Both the lower authorities have denied the benefit of exemption on the ground that the description of the goods in the invoice and the Bill of Entry was "both side coated white card board" whereas Serial No. 98(5)(b) and (c) in Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 covered only Pasteboard. The exemption has also been denied on the ground that the country of origin certificate produced is not as per the prescribed rules.3. In the appeals before us, it has been stated that the Tribunal, in its order No. 718 to 722/86-D dated 10-9-1986 reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 282 (Tri.) in the case of M/s. Sunris...
Rishi Roop Chemical Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD35(Delhi)
1. As the Bench, where this appeal was originally fixed for hearing, was of the opinion that there were conflicting decisions of the Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (The tribunal) in respect of the proviso, which was inserted in Section 43B of the Income-tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the Finance Act 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988 and the Explanation 2, which was inserted in the said Section, by the Finance Act 1989 retrospectively from 1-4-1984, it forwarded the record of the appeal to the President of the Tribunal with a request to constitute a Special Bench to resolve the conflict. Under Section 254(3) of the Act, the President has constituted the present Bench and referred the following question:- Whether the Sales-tax payable, but which has not fallen due for payment under the Sales-tax Rules, can be allowed as an expenditure in spite of the retrospective introduction of Explanation to Section 43B by the Finance Act 1989? 2. At the outset, the learned Standing Counsel for the Reve...
Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC184Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune, dated 20th May, 1988 passed in F. No. V(11A) 15-7/Adj/87/534, 2. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Pune has held that the product called "Crown Cork Sealing Compound", manufactured by the appellants out of Polyvinyl Chloride Resin, Plasticizers and Inorganic Fillers, was not 'PVC Compound' as claimed by them. Consequently, he held that the goods were not eligible for the benefit of duty exemption contained in Central Excise Notification No.206/77 dated 29-6-1977 and confirmed the demand for duty leviable on clearances of the goods during the period from November 1976 to 20-10-1983. The appellants' contention that the product was P.V.C.Compound was not accepted. Hence the present appeal.3. We have heard Shri CM. Korde, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, DR, for the respondent Collector. "Exemption to PVC compound. - In exercise of the powers confe...
Aquarius Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1992)LC406Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of is directed against the order-in-original No.2/Collr/1988 dated 21-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot.2. The dispute relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon the appellants under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. At the outset Shri S. Ganesh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that he is not questioning the merits of the case, i.e., findings given by the Collector regarding confiscation of the goods for illicit importation and consequently imposition of redemption fine and penalty on Shri P.K. Mehta who is actual importer in the present case but he is questioning the legality of imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act upon the appellants.3. The case of the Department is that one Shri Mehta had arranged importation of goods by filling Bill of Entry on behalf of the appellants (M/s. Acquarius) declared to be Photo-composing/photo type-setting machine for printing mac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »