Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC267Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the claims of the respondents for refund of interest paid by them in terms of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The issue for determination is the eligibility of the importers to obtain refund of interest paid by them on consignments imported prior to 13-5-1983, that is, the date on which Section 61 was amended to provide for payment of interest. M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota, imported some consignments of MEG, DMT, etc. during the period May, 1982 to March, 1983 and deposited the same in public bonded warehouse as per the provision of Section 60 of the Customs Act. At the time when the imported goods entered the territorial waters of India, Section 61 did not provide for payment of interest. However, by amendment on 13-5-1983 Section 61 was amended providing for a lesser period of bonding, that is, three months only instead of one year in the case of goo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Godavari Devi Sehgal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD71(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated December 19, 1988, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT (A)" for short].2. The only dispute arising in this appeal relates to disallowance of commission aggregating to Rs. 79,232 paid to Dr. B.N. Wahi and his son, Shri Diwakar Wahi. The assessee, an individual, carries on a business in purchase and sale of homoeopathic medicines under the name and style of Segal's Pharmacy, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee's establishment consisted of 14 employees. All employees except Dr. B.N. Wahi were paid salaries besides bonus, unavailed leave benefits and commission. A sum of Rs. 90,539.86 was paid as commission to Dr. B.N. Wahi. In respect of payment of commission to Dr. B.N. Wahi, the assessee was required by the Income-tax Officer to produce supporting evidence in the form of any agreement for payment of a huge amount o...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Tilak Raj Batra and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD25(Delhi)
1. The appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun dated 24th December, 1986 on the following grounds: Learned AAC has erred in law and on facts in accepting the group partition claimed by the assessee and which too was not acted upon by the members and mere deed of partition is sufficient to establish that the partition has actually taken place -ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC).2. The Cross Objection has also been filed by the assessee supporting the order of CIT(A). We dispose of the appeal as well as the Cross Objection by this order for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Shri Tilak Raj Batra was karta of a HUF with his wife Smt. Krishna Batra, two minor sons Master Rajan Batra and Raman Batra and two minor daughters Km.Renu Batra and Km. Ranjana Batra as members/coparceners. For the assessment year 1978-79 to 1982-83 assessee filed returns of income on 21st January, 1983 and in...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Consultancy Service Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1991
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC354
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-appeal No.2574/86/BCH dated 23-12-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The point of dispute in the present case is whether 'Printed Aptitude Test booklets' are classifiable under Tariff Item 49.01 of ICT as claimed by the appellants or under Heading 48.01/21(1) of ICT as it was held by the Department.3. The appellants imported 16 packages of printed aptitude Test booklets (titled "Differential Test Battery"), under OGL (vide Item 5 of List No. 7 of Appx. 6 of the Policy of 1985-88) valued at Rs. 61,239/-. The appellants filed a bill of entry declaring the said goods as falling under Heading 49.01 of ICT which covers 'printed books' etc.as they were free of customs duty. The Deputy Collector of Customs, Air Cargo, Bombay who adjudicated the proceedings negatived the contentions of the appellants and held that item imported is in the nature of exercise book meant for manuscript writing by students, the item cann...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shyam Kishore Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi104; 1991(20)DRJ257
ORDERP. N. NAG, J. 1. These writ petitions raise important and interesting questions of law, which can be formulated as follows:1. Whether the- deposit -of tax amount under Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) is a condition precedent for nearing or determination of the appeal but also for filing of memorandum of appeal? 2. Whether the District Judge has a discretion to grant stay of the disputed amount or dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of the amount in appeal, with or without conditions, in the office of Corporation? Further, what is the amount in deposit in appeal? 3. In case it is held that the deposit of tax amount under Section 170(b) of the Act is a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal and the District Judge has no discretion to grant stay of the deposit of tax amount and dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of amount with or without conditions, whether such provision is 20,42...
Tag this Judgment!AlimuddIn Vs. Mohd. Mian and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT453; 1991(21)DRJ77
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This case has a chequered history. Respondents 1 to 3. who are the sons of the original decree-holder, deceased Shri Ahmed Ali Khan, are seeking to execute a decree which was passed in favor of their father, for eviction of petitioner's father as far back as on 29th January, I960. The father and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Section 13 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'), which culminated in the aforesaid decree on the ground of his personal requirement and that of his family members dependent on him, which obviously included his sons. The decree, however, could not be executed because under the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Slum Areas Act'), the decree-holder was required to obtain sanction of the competent authority under the said Act for executing the decree in relation to the property situated in a slum area...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hindu Heritage Research Foundation Charitable and Religions ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1991
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT433
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is an application under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious trust Act 1920 (for short, the Act) by the petitioner -who is the Chairman and Author of the Trust known as Hindu Heritage Research Foundation .(Sanatan Dharma Shodha Pratishthan) seeking opinion advice of direction for changing the name of the said Trust to India Heritage Research Foundation, (2) By a Trust Deed dated January' 19,1989. the petitioner Swami Chidanand Saraswati set up the aforesaid Trust, The objects of the Trust are given in para No. 5 of the Trust Deed, which are as follows:- '(I)to prepare and publish a multi volume encyclopedia and other publications; (ii) to promote exchange of scholars between India and the rest of the world; (iii) to encourage and promote education all round, for the development of spiritual values and character; (iv) to advance and promote any other object of spiritual and charitable nature; (v) to infuse spirit in the people of India to effectively disc...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Salim Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ333; 1992(38)ECC49
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature therof to quash an order dated 17th of August 1990 made by Shri Mahendra Prased, specially empowered officer of the Central Government, for his detention under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. (2) The grounds of detention together with relied upon documents were served upon the petitioner along with the order of his detention. (3) The detention order has been challenged on various grounds. It is however, unnecessary to enumerate the same as learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only of them at the time of hearing. (4) He has contended that the detention order should be set aside as some of the relied upon documents furnished to the detenu were illegible. The relevant plea taken in ground No.XII in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›