Delhi Court February 1992 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.
Ecoplast (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT578TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic films. They imported one Multi-layer Extruding Machine along with standard spares.Since they intended to avail the concession applicable to Project Imports under Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff, they applied for the registration of the import contract under the Project Imports Regulations, 1986. After registration the Customs Authorities allotted the necessary registration number to the contract. Under Notification No. 132/85-Cus., dated 19-4-1985 goods imported for industrial plants and projects falling under Heading No. 98.01 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were exempt from the basic duty of customs in excess of 30%. Multilayer Extruding Machines falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, being specifically covered by Notification No. 125 of 1986, the imported machine was assessed to basic duty of 10% under this notification in preference to the basic duty of 30% that ...
Lml Fibres Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT251TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the orders of the lower authorities rejecting the claim of the appellants for reassessment and consequential refund of duty on a grinding set imported by them and assessed to duty under sub-heading 4016.93 as "Gaskets, Washers and other seals". The appellant claimed re-assessment under Tariff Heading 98.06 read with Heading 8474.20 and the benefit of exemption under Notification 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 on the ground that this was classifiable as crushing and grinding machines and, being parts of such machines, they were entitled to the exemption under the notification.Both the authorities have denied the exemption on the ground that being parts of general use they are not eligible for this classification in terms of Note 7(d) of Chapter 98 as defined in Note 2 to Section XV and were also excluded from Notification 257/88-Cus., dated 21-9-1988.Collector (Appeals) has taken the further view that they cannot be assessed under Section 19 of the Customs Act ...
Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)LC546Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur deciding that glass containers of special size 27 x 17 x 15 cm manufactured by the appellants and supplied exclusively to the Railways, who have utilised the same for the purpose of storage batteries (and not as laboratory glassware) are nothing but parts of storage batteries meriting classification under Item 31(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Based on this decision, the Collector held that the appellants had misdeclared the goods by seeking their classification under Item 23A(2), and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q. He also ordered confiscation of 8981 pieces of glass containers valued at Rs. 4,50,892/- which were misdeclared and gave the option to clear them on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of confiscation. The Collector also directed that the amount of duty short levied on the glass containers which are held to have been removed clandestinely without payment of d...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)LC350Tri(Delhi)
1. By this application, the Revenue has sought for the stay of the operation of the order of Collector (Appeals) under which the learned Collector has allowed the respondents' appeal in respect of that portion of the refund which was rejected by the Assistant Collector.The respondents had sought for refund consequent on the issue of Notification No. 44/89, dated 21-9-1989 issued under Section 11C and the learned original authority, held that incidence of duty had not been passed by them to the appellants and allowed the partial refund.Portion of the refund was disallowed for the reasons that the appellants had not fulfilled the requirement of filing the refund within six months. The learned Collector following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C. C.E. v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 115, allowed the respondents' appeal holding that all the requirements of filing the refund claim had been complied with.2. The Revenue's appeal is on the...
indrajit Seth Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD304(Delhi)
1. The common effective ground raised in these appeals involving assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 read as under : That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case id not accepting the contention of the appellant that the income from his l/3rd share in the house property at 21, Golf Links, New Delhi, other than the portion let out, has to be taken at nil under the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that, therefore, he ought not to have upheld the inclusion of an income of Rs. 5,605 in the total income of the appellant.2. The assessee is an individual earning income from salary, interest on securities, property, capital gains and other sources. Along with his mother Mrs. Aruna Seth and brother Shri Vikramjit Seth the assessee owned a residential house at 21, Golf Links, New Delhi. A portion of the said house was let out at a rent of Rs. 4,500 p.m. Out of the remaining portions the assessee's brother and mother occupied certain por...
Naresh Behal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD298(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal from the order of the CIT(A) dated 15-1-1988 maintaining an addition of Rs. 1,03,980 on account of alleged unexplained investment by the assessee in the construction of his factory building. At an open auction, held on 27-7-1976 by the Delhi Development Authority, the assessee, an individual, had purchased Plot No. C-59/3 in the Industrial Area, Okhla, Phase-II, New Delhi for Rs. 81,500 on perpetual leasehold basis. The assessee completed the construction of factory building thereupon by November/December 1980.3. In the return filed for the assessment year 1981 -82 relevant to previous year ending on 31-3-1981 the assessee declared the details of cost of construction of the factory building as under:Amount spent up to 31-3-1980 - Rs. 2,43,503Amount spent during the year under consideration - Rs. 1,28,332 ------------- 4. In addition to the construction account the assessee filed registered valuer's report dated 27-5-1981 along with the return. The registered value...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Chander Ram Kishandas
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR825(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 7,971 did not represent entertainment expenses and they were not hit by the provisions of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessed is a firm of commission agents and dealers in cloth. In its accounts for the year ended on June 24, 1971, relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, it debited Rs. 7,971 as Rasoi expenses which were claimed as revenue expenditure. By applying the provisions of section 37(2B), the Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim by treating it as an entertainment expense. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, allowed the claim by coming to the conclusion that this expenditure was very necessar...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR223(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two question to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed company was entitled to rebate under section 141A (1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 1963 (No. 13 of 1963), with effect from April 1, 1963 on the payment made prior to January 1, 1964, as part of the tax determined to be payable on provisional assessment 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the point was not debatable and the assessed was entiled to relief claimed under section 154 of the Act ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that, prior to December 31, 1963, the assessed filed it return of income for the assessment year 1963-64. A provisional assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer and a demand of Rs. 96,89,54...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madan Lal MehrA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Del)107; [1992]198ITR287(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-76, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the declaration made on December 4, 1966, by the assessed impressing his one-sixth share in the firm of Messrs. Madan Lal Jagdish Chand with the character of the joint family property with effect from November 12, 1966, was valid in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that impressing of a share in a firm with the character of joint family property was valid in law ?' 2. The firm, Messrs. Madan Lal Jagdish Chand, has six partners. Originally, the assessment was made in respect of each partner, but vide order dated September 9, 1975, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73, the Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a...
Babu Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR172(Delhi); 47(1992)DLT671; 1992(23)DRJ59
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for issue of a direction to the arbitrator to file the award bearing No. ARB/RKS/88/7 dated March 14,1990 and thereafter to make the same the rule of the Court. (2) In pursuance of a notice issued to the arbitrator the arbitrator filed the award on August 1,1990 before this Court. (3) Notices were issued thereafter to both the parties. The respondent alone filed objections against the award. No objection was filed by the petitioner. (4) On pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections raised in the objection petition? 2. Relief, if any. Issue No. I. Learned counsel for the objector, Mrs. Mala Goel, has contended that the arbitrator has erred and misconducted himself in not considering the facts and I material placed on the reord. The arbitrator wrongly allowed the claim of Rs. 10.000.00 to the petitioner which was withheld...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »