Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.G. Hawkins
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR593(Delhi)
B. N. Kirpal, J. 1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : "That the living allowances should be treated as exempt without verifying whether the said living allowance granted to the assessed to meet expenses were wholly. Necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of his duties and without certifying whether the assessed actually and wholly spent the said living allowances ?" 2. The petitioner had sought reference of four questions to this court in an application filed under section 256(1). The Tribunal has referred three questions to this court, but the question which is now proposed to be referred was not referred by the Tribunal on the ground that this question does not arise from the Tribunal's order. The other questions of law were referred. We are in agreement with the Tribunal's conclusion that the question which is now proposed did not arise out of the Tribunal's order and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal does not cal...
National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR528(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1978-79, the assessed is seeking reference of two questions of law which, admittedly, are similar to the questions for which reference has already been made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-Act, 1961. In view thereof we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the petitioner-company had business connection with Nittestu Mining Consultants Company Ltd., of Japan and, thereforee, was liable to be treated as their agents under section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment proceedings could be validly started by treating the petitioner-company as an agent of the non-resident party even after it had deducted income-tax at source according to the orders made by ...
Singhvi Woollen Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC510Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of their refund claim amounting to Rs. 96,682.95, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual structure of the case is that the appellants M/s. Singhvi Woollen Industries manufactured woollen yarn from indigenous virgin wool falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 18-B during the period 30-8-1976 to 15-6-1977 and paid duty @ 10%. However, the appellants preferred their refund claim for Rs. 1,06,078.95 on 4-8-1980 on the grounds that woollen carpet processed yarn manufactured and cleared by them was charged to Central Excise duty @ 10% Ad valorem on Tariff value of Rs. 37.50, whereas their product was assessable on Tariff value of Rs. 30/- in view of Notification No. 235/76 dated 30-8-1976, as the manufacture scoured yarn which was obtained by manmial process of washing the noncoused yarn to free the yarn from greasy element and the said yarn was chargeable to duty at the rate of Rs. 30/- per kg., and further that the duty paid ...
Jewel House Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC305Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned Counsel stated that this is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.2. It was his submission that the gold ornaments in question had been duly accounted for in the records but were being carried from Kanpur to Lucknow for being shown to an interested party on approval basis and it was expected that the transaction could materialise. Though the relevant records were also being carried along with the gold ornaments, when on the way the car was stopped and the officers of Allahabad Collectorate seized the ornaments in question. In the follow up action the officers of the Kanpur Collectorate visited their premises and naturally found these quantity of ornaments not there and made out the present case against them for the alleged shortage. The department alleged inter alia violation of Section 8(i) and Section 55 and the Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs.) 3. In the meantime, the Allahab...
Deep Motors Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT573TriDel
1. Arguing on the subject ROM application learned Advocate Mrs. Archana Wadhwa has stated that there has been mistake apparent on the record inasmuch as a plea regarding reduction of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the truck was made but that plea has not been dealt with in Order No. A/463 to 465/89-NRB dated 10-11-1989. On being asked by the Bench whether this ground had been taken in the appeal memorandum she pointed out ground No. IV which reads as follows. "That, in any view of the matters, the learned Collector was not justified in ordering confiscation of the truck and in imposing a heavy redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- when he had himself reached the finding that the appellant Company had no knowledge about the alleged illicit use of the truck for transport of the contraband goods and had accordingly dropped penal proceedings against the appellant under Section 114, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. In this regard, the learned Collector has also failed to give du...
Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas155(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT201
Leila Seth, J.1. The petitioner is a citizen of India and a graduate in commerce and law and has the requisite educational and professional qualifications to become a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange. He is praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated February 5, 1987, written by the Government of India to the President of the Delhi Stock Exchange regarding increasing the membership and dilution of the shareholding of the said exchange. 2. In order to appreciate the matter, it is necessary to set out the background of the case. The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was incorporated on June 25, 1947. The existing building was constructed in 1950, out of funds contributed by members. Initially, it was necessary only to hold one share to become a member but, some time in 1963, the eligibility criteria was changed to two shares. On February 20, 1957, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (Act 42 of 1956), come into force. The object of the Act was to prevent u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kabir Das Investment Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR505(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer invoked section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied additional tax of Rs. 18,540 on account of non-distribution of dividend. The profits which were available for distribution, according to the Income-tax Officer, was Rs. 37,083. 2. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the tax after coming to the conclusion that, judged from business considerations, the non-declaration of the dividend was justified. The Income-tax Officer filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal reiterated the reasons given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, incidentally, had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee : [1965]57ITR176(SC) and had come to the conclusion that non-declaration of the dividend was, on the facts of this case, justified. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the respondent-company owed Rs. 5,78,000 to the holding company ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electronics Consortium Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR572(Delhi)
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 holding that the assessed-company was entitled to deduction under section 35(1) read with section 35(2) even though the plant and machinery had been used by the assessed-company for production of TVs ?' 2. A short question involved is whether the plant and machinery was bought and used by the respondent-assessed for research and development or not. The finding of fact by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and which has been accepted by the Tribunal is that the machinery involved was in fact purchased for research and development and was also used as such. This is a pure finding of fact and no question of law arises. 3. Dismissed....
Raiesh Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi68
Leila Seth, J.(Rule DJ.) (1) The petitioner is a citizen of India and a graduate m commerce and law and has the requisite educational and professional qualifications to become a. member of the Delhi Stock Exchange. He is praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 5th February, 1987 written by the Government of India to the President of the Delhi Stock Exchange regarding increasing the membership and dilution of share holding of the said Exchange. (2) In order to appreciate the matter, it is necessary to set out the background of the case. The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was incorporated on 25th Juna, 1947. The existing building was constructed in 1950 out of funds contributed by members. Initially, it was only necessary to hold one share to become a member but sometime in 1963 the eligibility criteria was changed to two shares. On 20th February, 1957, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (Act 42 of 1956) came into force. The object of the Act was to...
Abdul Gafoor Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT264
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30th January, 1989 by Government of Kerala directing the detention of the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'The Act'), with view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggling goods. The declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act dated 2nd March 1989 was made by Sh. B.V. Kumar, Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The said declaration is also under challenge in this petition. (2) On 4th September 1989 a representation was made by the petitioner to Central Government of India. English translation of the said representation which was addressed to the President of India is Annexure G to the writ petition. In that representation the petitioner had also challenged the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »