Delhi Court February 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.
Jugmander Das Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD127(Delhi)
ORDERThis is an assesseds appeal arising out of the assesseds assessment for assessment year 1986-87.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessed and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before me.3. The assesseds accounting period ended on 31-3-1986. The assesseds major source of income is share from two partnership firms. In addition he derived small amounts of income from property and interest. The assessed claimed deduction under section 80C in respect of payments towards life Insurance Premium and purchase of National Savings Certificates. The admissible deduction was claimed in sum of Rs. 12,365. The ITO declined to grant the deduction on the ground that income accrued only on the last day of the accounting year, i. e., 31-3-1986 and the payments for LIP and purchase of NSCs having been made earlier could not be said to be out of the assesseds income chargeable to tax. The learned ITO relied on CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai : [1965]56...
imperial Malts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC60Tri(Delhi)
1. Both the captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Brief facts leading to the present appeals lie in a narrow compass.The appellants M/s. Imperial Malts Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Malt & Malt Extract falling under T.I. 68 of the CET.They submitted the Classification List No. 88/82-83 and subsequent Classification List No. 5/83 effective from 1-6-1982 and 1-4-1983 respectively for approval at nil rate of duty for all their products shown at Serial No. 1 to 3 of the Classification List under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1-3-1975 as amended from time to time.Since it appeared to the Revenue that the said products fall outside the purview of Notification No. 55/75 as amended vide Notification No.104/82 dated 28-2-1982, a show cause notice dated 11-5-1983 was issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the appropriate duty should not be charge...
Radiation Technologies (India) Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT481TriDel
1. M/s. Radiation Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. has tiled an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Radiation Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. had filed Bill of Entry No. 11480/6 dated 21st October, 1986 covering plastic tubings electrical insulating material (Heat Shrinkable plastic tubings) and had declared the value at Rs. 6,84 554/- equivalent to US $ 44,392.70 FOB. The GIF value at Rs. 6,84,554/-is inclusive of 20 1/8% freight and insurance. With the Bill of Entry the appellant had filed 3 invoices which are reproduced below :- In respect of 86 packages the net and gross weight of the goods declared in the Bill of Entry was 4,085 pounds (1853. 45 kgs) and 3884.2 kgs. respectively. For the number of packages declared in the Bill of Entry was 98. The number of packages as covered by the invoices filed with the Bill of Entry and their net/gross weight was as under :-___________...
Chinar Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD144(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri M. A. Bakshi, J. M. - This appeal filed by the assessed is directed against the order of the CWT (A)-XI, New Delhi and the dispute relates to the assessment of the value of industrial plot of land purchased by the assessed from the D. D. A. in an open auction. The assessed is a private limited company on 27th October, 1982. The assessed acquired an industrial plot for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 23,16,509. The amount was paid by the assessed and the possession of the plot was also given prior to the valuation date. The valuation date of the assessed-company for the year under appeal is 30th April, 1983. Thought the possession of the plot was handed over to the assessed prior to the valuation date, the Conveyance Deed was executed on 1st December, 1983. The registration of the deed was effected on 24th of October, 1983. Since as on the valuation date the property had not been legally transferred to the assessed the assessed claimed exclusion of a sum of Rs. 23,16,509. ...
Petrofils Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT384TriDel
1. This is an application purporting to be under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for staying the further proceedings said to have been started on the basis of the show cause notice dated 27-10-1989 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda in F. No.V(Ch.54)15-6/DA/89 under our inherent powers.2. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the earlier Adjudication Order in Original No. 14/MP/89, dated 13-6-1989 was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda whereby he demanded a duty of Rs. 2,12,83,817.67 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs upon the appellants. Against that order the appellants preferred their present appeal and the requirement of the pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty was dispensed with by the Bench.Elaborating further he submitted that now the same Collector has issued another show cause notice dated 27-10-1989 as aforesaid. According to him the said subsequent show cause notice is also based on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delton Sales P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR79(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1983-84, the petitioner is seeking reference with regard to the claim of the respondent-assessed which was allowed by the Tribunal regarding leave encashment. The case of the petitioner was that it was a contingent liability, but the Tribunal has allowed the same by holding that the answer to the question is self evident. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen : (1969)ILLJ785SC . That decision, however, did not pertain to leave encashment, but was with regard to payment of gratuity under a statutory enactment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General and Textile Industries Ltd. : [1986]157ITR158(Cal) , where the High Court has held that the provision for leave encashment is an contingent liability. The view of the Calcutta High C...
S.M. Malik and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1919; 41(1990)DLT504; 1990(19)DRJ25
Malik Sharif ud Din, J. (1) S.M. Malik was one of the persons who was convicted for an offence under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo to five years imprisonment and to the payment of fine of Rs. 5.000.00 . This was done by the order of conviction dated 24th of February 1987 followed by an order of sentence dated 27th of February,1987. The appeal filed by the appellant/non-applicant herein was admitted and by an order dated 6th of April 1987 this court further ordered that the conviction and sentence shall remain suspended pending appeal and also stayed the payment of fine. (2) I would like to make mention at this stage that the State which is party to the appeal and had initiated the prosecution against the non-applicant S.M. Malik and others has no grievance. The grievance now made is by employer of the convict S.M. Malik who along with others has preferred this the appeal. Mr. Mathur has raised a preliminary objection, that the applicant Bharat Heavy Ele...
Gurdip Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 1990RLR162
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Respondent No. 3, Ashok Kumar Bajaj, is the tenant of part of house No. 1/6-A, New Storey, Block I, Lajpat Nagar IV. Petitioner, Gurdeep Singh, is the son of the landlady. Some altercations seem to have taken place between respondent 3 and the petitioner on 22 9 87. In respect of the incident of 22.9.87 a Kalendra u/s 93/97 Delhi Police Act (the ACT) was filed by A S.I., Bal Kishan before the Met. Mgte. New Delhi. A copy of the Kalendra and statement of respondent 3 recorded by A.S.I. on 22.9.87 has been placed on record. The Kalendra u/s 93/97 of the Act is an respect of the alleged incident of 22.9.87. On 28.11.87 the M.M. took cognizance of the offence u/S, 93/97 of the Act and framed a notice of the same date stating that 'it is alleged against you Gurdeep Singh s/o Shri Shadi Lal, aged 30 years, that on 22.9 87 at about 9.45 P.M. near house no 1/6A, Vikram Vihar, within the jurisdiction of P.P. Amar Colony, you are abusing Ashok Bajaj, your tenant, in the st...
Sunita @ Sudesh Vs. Kapil Dev and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT418; II(1990)DMC1; 1990(18)DRJ278
ORDER12 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code reads as under :-'5.Judgment on admissions-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, made such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission. (2)Whenever a judgment is pronounced under Sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.' MRS.CHANDERMobini Chopra, learned counsel for plaintiff, has contended that plaintiff has given details of her Stridban, in various lists, which are annexures P. 4 to P. 7. In the annexures, so filed by defendant no. 1, there is clear admission on the part of defendant no.1, that certain articles, belonging to plaintiff, are in his possession...
Anand Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)LC363Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Anand Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., Resham Nagar, Dadri, Ghaziabad, U.P. have filed the above captioned appeals Since the issue involved in all the above captioned 4 appeal is similar the same are being disposed of by this common order. The facts of all the above captioned appeals are similar. In all the above 4 appeals the appellants had imported pre-mutilated synthetic rags and had filed the following Bills of Entries:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Appeal No. Bill of Entry. Value Fine PenaltyNo. declared. imposed. imposed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. C/3498/88 104035 190210/- 200000/- 100000/- dt. 21.5.19882. C/3721/88 104034 162994/- 30000/- 10000/- dt. 21.5.19883. C/242/89 106597 106032/- 106032/- 5000/- dt. 9.12.19884. C/408/89 106598 109445/- 110000/- 5000/- dt. 9.12.1988 2. The appellants had declared the goods as completely premutilated synthetic rags and had sought th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »