Delhi Court December 1991 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. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR708(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks references of the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing part of expenses in connection with the maintenance of Sikri Garden as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,000 being notional interest on loan given to Modi Rubber Ltd. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that while computing admissible deduction under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the pro rata electricity and water charges incurred for alleged official use of the premises occupied by the directors should be allowed 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 9,36,939 as repairs of old and worn-out plant and machinery as revenue expenditure 5. Whether, on the facts a...
Rajender Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT130; 1992(22)DRJ133; 1992RLR79
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The father of the petitioner owned about 27 Bighas of land which was acquired for planned development of Delhi. In accordance with the policy of large-scale acquisition which had been promulgated by the Delhi Administration, the persons whose lands were acquired were entitled to allotment of an alternative plot. (2) In the year 1982 the father of the petitioner applied for land. He, however, died in 1983. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Administration seeking allotment of land in his favor. On 17th March, 1986 a letter was written by the petitioner to the Delhi Administration in which it was stated that he was the only heir of his father and that he had deposited an affidavit and death certificate. He also, Along with the letter of 17th March, 1986, deposited the relinquishment deed and list of legal heirs. (3) As is normally the case with the Government Departments, this citizen did not get any redress. It is thereu...
Khattar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT546TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants presented a Bill of Entry for warehousing on 9-10-1986 covering 89 crates of "Wood Rough Peeled but not further prepared," falling under Heading 44.08 of the Customs Tariff. The Bill of Entry was permitted to be re-noted as a home consumption Bill of Entry on 23-10-1986. The partial exemption admissible in respect of basic duty of Customs on wood and articles of wood falling under Heading No. 40.08 admissible under Notification No. 62-Cus., dated 13-7-1985 Should be 17-3-1985 - Ed. and 44.08 was withdrawn by Notification No. 439/86-Cus., dated 6-10-1986. Similarly by issue of the Notification No. 440/86-Cus., dated 6-10-1986 the exemption from auxiliary duty enjoyed by the said goods by virtue of Notification No. 311Cus., dated 6-10-1986 Should be 13-5-1986 - Ed. was also withdrawn. The goods were assessed to duty at the revised ...
Gupta Foods Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC719Tri(Delhi)
1. The applicants are manufacturers of biscuits and had availed of the small scale exemption under Notification 80/80 C.E. dated 1.3.1980 in the year 1981-82 for clearances up to a value of Rs. 7.5 lakh. In the following year, they availed of exemption on the first clearance above Rs. 7.5 lakh, and thereafter, duty was paid on the clearance above that limit at the prescribe rate. As the aggregate value of clearances during 1982-83 was Rs. 24,73,675.70, they claim they were eligible for exemption during 1983-84 under Notification 83/83 C.E. dated 1.3.1983.2. During verification of their records, the authorities found that the assessee was availing of the exemption incorrectly in as much as for the purpose of computation of value of excisable goods cleared during the years 1981-82 and 1982-83, they did not-- (a) include the cost of corrugated fibre containers and wooden cases used for packing the biscuits which they claimed to be secondary packing and meant for providing protection duri...
System Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: (1993)(44)LC96Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the appellants were manufacturers of Radio-cum-Cassette-Recorders and Television sets both falling under item No. 33A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They obtained a Central Excise L-4 Licence on 25.11.1983. In August, 1984 against their import licence No. 1962068 dated 4.8.1983 they imported three consignments containing 500 sets of Model F6F Two-in-ones in knocked down condition, in the form of components. One of the three Bills of Entry filed in Bombay Custom House for the clearance of these components was for 5 cases containing 500 Tape Deck Mechanisms. The scrutiny of the records of Canara Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi revealed that the appellants were advanced funds required for the importation of the entire lot of 500 sets of Two-in-ones and the Open Cash Credit statement dated 1.9.1984 submitted by them to the Bank also showed that 500 sets of Two-in-ones were received by them. On 2.11.1985 the Central Excise office...
New Plastomers India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC483Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay rejecting their prayer for granting the benefit of notification No. 88/89-Cus. (Sr. No. 3) as amended by notfn.No. 301/88-Cus. and 133/86-CE as amended by 55/88-CE (Sr. No. 14) in respect of their imported product "Noryl brand styrene modified Polyphenylene oxide''.2. The benefit of the above said notification were denied to them on the ground that these are blend of PPO and polystyrene. A show cause notice dt. 6.2.1989 was issued to them on the ground that the goods Noryl modified PPO is not a plain PPO but a blend of PPO polystyrene.It was contended that since the goods were co-polymers of PPO and not only PPO, the benefit of exemption notification No. 88/87-Cus. (S. No.3) cannot be extended. For the same reason, it was contended that benefit of notification No. 133/86-CE as amended by notification No.55/88-CE under Sr. No. 14 covering PPO could not be extended. It was alleged that the ...
Maharaja International Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas651(Delhi); [1992]196ITR657(Delhi)
1. In the present case, the respondents had issued an authorisation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner and had also issued restraint orders under section 132(3). These restraint orders were in respect of refunds which were to be made by the petitioners to the persons enumerated in the list running into 29 sheets. These refunds were because of over-subscription to the shares which have been offered to the public by the petitioner. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the earlier restraint order under section 132(3) has now been converted to deemed seizure under the second proviso to section 132(1). 3. The result of the deemed seizure is that the petitioner is deemed to have made a refund of the extra subscription money received by it to six persons in respect of whom the deemed seizure has been ordered. In our opinion the deemed seizure would absolve the petitioner of any liability which may be attached to the petitioner under the provision...
Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. Under Secretary to the Government of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR453(Delhi)
Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1, Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd., which is engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots/billets and stainless steel ingots in its mini steel plant an order on 8th of August, 1986, with M/s. Billiton Metal and Ores., International B. V., Netherlands, for import of 352/40 M. T. nickel contained in ferro nickel as US dollars 1.9495 per lb nickel, c. i. f. Bombay plus US dollars 0.078 per lb nickel extra towards interest for 180 days credits from the date of the bill of lading (the interest rate calculating to approximately 7.5% p.a.). M/s. Billiton Metals and Ores, International B. V. accepted the order subject to the condition are borne by the petitioner. The petitioner, by its letter 10(15) (iv) (c) of the Income-tax Act for according approval to the exemption of interest payable on debt incurred in a foreign country for supply of raw material. Respondent No. 1, vide order dated October 30, 1986, rejected the request on the ground that it was not ...
Puran Chand Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sona Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT242
G.C. Mital, C.J.(1) It is not disputed that the appellant company took possession of the premises in dispute, which is an industrial premises,from Smt. Sona Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi on license, monthly license feebeingRs.l6.500.00. The appellant had not paid the license fee with effect from 12/12/1989. On account of arrears, which amounted to debt,the Lessers filed a company petition for winding up of the appellant company.Since in spite of opportunities, granted by the learned Company Judge, the appellant did not pay the amount, the learned Company Judge ordered the citation of the winding up petition and provisional liquidator was appointed.Against this order of the Company Judge, this appeal has been directed.(2) While admitting the company appeal, this Court had ordered that the appellant should deposit sums of Rs. 44.000.00 and Rs. 40.000.00 as a condition precedent for granting stay of the order of the learned CompanyJudge. The appellant complied with that order and directions.(3...
Subhash Chander and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT366
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This order is to dispose of the criminal revision filed by Subhash Chander and his mother Smt. Krishna Wanti thereby challenging the order dated 8th January, 1991 directing the framing of the charge under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code against them and the charge framed against them on the same day. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under: (3) Smt. Shashi Bala @ Kanchan Rani was the daughter of Smt. Satya Rani Chadha and Suraj Parkash Chadha. Smt. Kunan Devi and Shri S.S. Kohli are the mother and brother respectively of Satya Rani Chadha. (4) Shashi Bala @ Kanchan Rani was married to Subhash Chander on 4th May, 1978 and thereafter she started residing with her in-laws. Subhash Chander petitioner is the husband and Smt. Krishnawanti is the mother-in law of Kanchan Rani. Naresh is the brother while Chanchal and Aruna are the sisters of Subhash Chander. (5) On 17th March, 1979 Smt. Kanchan Rani died at the h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »