Delhi Court March 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.
Escorts Electronics Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD402(Delhi)
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue arising out of the assessee's assessment for assessment year 1982-83. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.2. The assessee is a public limited company. It was incorporated for the purpose of the business of manufacture and sale of X-Ray equipment and spare parts to be manufactured in India in collaboration with a French company known as M/s C.G.R. France. The said business came to an end sometimes during the accounting period ending 31-12-1980 relevant to assessment year 1981-82. We are now concerned with assessment year 1982-83 and it is admitted to the assessee that during this year the assessee carried on no business. During the year under consideration the assessee sold its technical drawings and industrial files that it had acquired for its aforesaid business. The sale was made for a consideration of Rs. 12,48,000. It ...
Smt. Sheila Jauhar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD325(Delhi)
1. In these appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-81 the point that arose for consideration was whether the returns filed by the assessee could be revised later on by claiming loss in certain business which was not disclosed or claimed in the original returns filed.2. The assessee derives income from salary and other sources. The original return for the assessment year 1980-81 was filed on 4th July, 1980 and that assessment was completed exparte but later on re-opened under Section 146 and again an assessment under Section 144 was made which was set aside by the CIT on 9-9-1986. Subsequently a notice was issued under Section 143(2) in response to which the assessee filed a Devised return on 13-7-1983 making a claim that he incurred some loss in Mushroom business and that loss should be allowed as a deduction from the total income. The assessment in this case was already completed on 24-3-1983. The ITO thought that a revised return filed after the comp...
L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: 2000(117)ELT34(Del)
M.C. Jain, C.J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of summons dated 3rd July 1990, Annexure 5, issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by the Assistant Director (DZU), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. The summons have been challenged on the ground that the Asstt. Director has no jurisdiction and is not a quasi-judicial authority and the summons does not specify any ground for holding any inquiry. No such inquiry can be conducted by the Assistant Director. Assessment has already been completed. It is not liable to be re-opened and besides that the documents called from the petitioner, list of which is appended to the summons, have been in fact causing harassment to the petitioner inasmuch as it would not be possible for the petitioner to finalise the sales tax assessment as well as income tax assessments. The summons which have been issued to the petitioner reads as under :- 'Dated the 3rd July, 1990. SUMMONS (Under Section 14 of the Central E...
Kishan Lal Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC105(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The Financial Commissioner, under the provisions of section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, has referred to this Court four questions for consideration arising out of the assessment to sales tax of the appellant in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as 'the local Act'). 2. The applicant, M/s. Kishan Lal Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., is a registered dealer with the Sales Tax Department and is engaged in the business of selling wine, crockery and other provisions. In the assessment year 1967-68 a cheque for Rs. 45,072.08 was submitted by the dealer along with return furnished by him for the quarter ending 31st March, 1968, but the same was dishonoured since it exceeded the arrangement with the bank. A notice was issued to the dealer under section 11(3a) of the local Act as to why penalty should not be imposed for n...
Rajinder Jaina Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT214
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25th August, 1989 whereby the building plans of the petitioner have been revoked on the ground that the petitioner has raised unauthorised construction. In the impugned order it is stated that a show cause notice dated 14th June, 1989 was sent to the petitioner requiring him to rectify the deviations from the sanctioned plan which had been noticed. It is further stated that the petitioner had failed to comply with the building bye-laws in spite of the notice dated 14th June, 1989. (3) In the writ petition it has been alleged that no show cause notice dated 14th June, 1989 was served on the petitioner and that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity having been granted to the petitioner. (4) More than 1 years have elapsed but till today no reply affidavit has been filed. The averment of the petitioner to the effect that 'show cause notice dated 14th June, 1989 had not been serve...
Om Parwal Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT216
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.R. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the respondents in not registering the petitioners. (3) The petitioners had applied for its registration as a Cooperative Group Housing Society. The registration was sought under the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. The application of the petitioner dated 26th June, 1989 was declined by the respondents vide their letter dated 11th September, 1989. The reason stated in this letter was that no Cooperative Group Housing Societies were being registered as there was an administrative ban on new registration of Group Housing Societies. (4) An appeal against the said decision was filed. The Lt. Governor, vide his order dated 25th April, 1990 dismissed the said appeal reiterating that there was an administrative ban on registration of new cooperative group housing societies. It was stated that 1400 societies have already been registered and they were awaiting allotment of land. (...
Sarup Chand and ors. Vs. Union of Indian and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT652
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The appeals arise out of Award No. 1954 of 1966-67 Appellants lands in Village Ziauddinpur were acquired for public purpose by Notification under Section 4 dated 24.10.1961. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the lands in three groups. For the first group he awarded compensation @ Rs. 700.00 per bigha; for the second group Rs. 600.00 per bigha; and for the third group Rs. 470.00 per bigha. (2) An application was made to the Additional District Judge under Section 18. The Adj combined groups (2) & (3) and awarded compensation @ Rs. 700.00 for the said two groups and Rs. 760.00 per bigha for group (i). (3) In RFA. 227/71 the appellants have claimed Rs. 2.500.00 per bigha as compensation; whereas in other appeals the appellants have claimed increase of Rs. 2,000.00 per bigha, and claiming the market value to be Rs. 2,760.00 per bigha. (4) The learned Collector while fixing the compensation relied on Ex. A/I produced by the appellants and Ex. A/I produced by the res...
Biochem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC599Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals were heard together because they involved consideration of a common question. The short point for decision is the appellant's plea that the consignments of 5-Fluorouracil U.S.P. and Cyclophosphamide B.P. imported by them under Bill of Entry No. A-4959 dated 15th May, 1986 and No. A-2304 dated 25th February, 1986 respectively on both of which 100% duty was paid by them on 28th July, 1986 should be treated as exempt from duty if not on legal grounds but on moral grounds as they had made available this life saving drug to patients suffering from cancer earlier without adding import duty in their cost. The fact is that these two drugs were exempt from duty by Notification No. 45/79 dated 1.3.1979. The claim is that they were withdrawn from the list appended to the notification in March, 1986.The appellants claim is that the withdrawal was probably by mistake since they were added to the duty free list on 18-7-1986 vide Notification No. 382/86. Their contention is that...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shanker Refrigeration Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD389(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue arising out of the assessee's assessment for assessment year 1984-85.1 have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee have perused the material placed before me.2. During the year under consideration the assessee paid Rs. 40,876 as bonus to its employees. This was @ 20% of their wages. The ITO observed that the assessee had no allocable surplus and, therefore, it was liable under the Bonus Act to pay only the minimum bonus i.e., 8.33% and, therefore, the excess was not allowable as deduction in terms of Section 36(1)(n) of the Act. He, therefore, disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,786. The assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who deleted the disallowance holding that the amount was payable in terms of an agreement between the representatives of the Cold Storage Association, West Bengal and the representatives of the Labour Union through the Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. In his view since the payment...
M/S. Bharta and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi284
ORDERS. B. WAD, J. 1. Land measuring 6 bighas 12 bids was belonging to the appellants situate in village Palam was acquired by a notification under section 4 read with S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27th May, 1967. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/per bighas, which was raised, to Rs. 3,000/- by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant's claim is for Rs. 6,000/- per bighas as compensation. 2. Both the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon the instances of sale in the adjoining village Dabri. The appellants have relied on copies of the judgments Ex. A-I to A-3 by which the learned Additional District Judge has held that these instances were prior in relation to the section 4 notifications in 1961. The respondent relied upon Ex.R-1, which is a sale deed for 300 sq. yds. for Rs. 975 / - executed on 22-2-1967. The learned Additional District Judge has rejected Ex. R.-I as n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »