Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 3 of about 93 results (0.019 seconds)Brij Raj Singh Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52ITD95(Delhi)
1. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th March, 1988 of CGT(A), Rajasthan, Jaipur. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. Relevant facts are that assessee had inherited as karta of the HUF, some movable and immovable property on the death of his father Late Highness Maharaj Sumer Singh Sahibji of Kishangarh. On 20th September, 1979, assessee made a declaration converting the land and building in question into stock-in-trade. The value put to this property was Rs. 10 lakhs. Assessee entered into a partnership on 1st October, 1979 bringing the land and building as his capital contribution. In the books of the firm a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was credited to the capital account of the assessee. Assessee has not filed any gift-tax return. Since the Gift-tax Officer considered the bringing of land and building into the partnership as a transfer without adequate consideration, he was of the view the assessee was liable to gift-tax on the difference be...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jagdish Processors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT676TriDel
1. On the last date of hearing i.e. to say 19-9-1994 it was noticed that the appeal filed by the appellant is defective, and therefore, time was given for moving the proper application for amending the appeal memo at the request of the SDR.2. When the case was called, Shri Dutta, ld. JDR appeared and submitted that despite the telex, the Collector of Central Excise, Ahemdabad has not responded till date. At this stage, it appears that Shri Dutta sensing that the Bench is going to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, came out with his ignorance that he is not aware whether any application has been filed in the registry and requested for adjournment. On enquiry from the Court-master it was found that no such application has been filed by the appellants.3. The present appeal is of 1986 and the Additional Collector, who was authorised to file the appeal was expected to know the procedure and the law. Still time was given to the appellant in the interest of justice to amend the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aarjay Textile and Agencies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT853TriDel
1. When the case was called, Shri Dutta, JDR appeared on behalf of the appellant. None for the respondent.2. At the outset, Shri Dutta, JDR submitted that the copy meant for the service upon the respondent was forwarded to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-in on 23-9-1994 but it is not known as to whether the respondent has been served or any steps were taken by the Collector.3. The present appeal is of 1986. Despite repeated opportunities to the appellants, the respondents has not been served with the notice of hearing. The stakes involved in the present appeal is said to be only to the extent of Rs. 6846/-.4. In the light of the above, we dismiss the present appeal for want of prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Datmia and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ569
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the award dated 31.10.1985. The Arbitrator has awarded under different claims certain sums in favor of the claimant. Claim No.1 consisted of 22 claims out of which the Arbitrator has awarded total 7 claims i.e. Claim No. 1 (i), (ii), (vii), (viii) (ix), (x), (xi), in favor of the petitioner, rest of the claims have been rejected by the Arbitrator. In relation .to Claim No.3 the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.l4,95,460.00 . Under Claim No.4 the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.5,54,303.00 . Under Claim No.5 the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 82751 .00 against a sum of Rs-1,67,711.95 paise claimed. Under Claim No.8 the Arbitrator has awarded interest on the amount of Rs.9,89,466.00 from 5.1.1981 and on the award against Claim No.3 i.e. for Rs.l4,95,460.00 interest has been awarded @ 12% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of payment or date of decree,whichever is earlier. (2) Learned counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Breweries Limited Vs. Bombay Ammonia (P) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)741; AIR1995Delhi288; 1995(1)ARBLR81(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT200; 1994(31)DRJ255
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act holding that the applicant had not been proved to have been ready and willing to have the disputes determined through arbitrator. The appellant says that the learned Judge was wrong in holding so. Hence this appeal. (2) The facts need only a thumb-nail description. Admittedly there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. Admittedly, the disputes forming the subject-matter of the suit instituted by the respondents falls within the ambit and scope of the said agreement. Admitted also is the position that the appellant had moved the application under section 34 of the Act without having taken any steps in the proceedings. However, despite all this the application did not find favor with the learned trial Judge. (3) WHY? (4) Well, the answer is that after having gone through the record, he felt that though before the institution of the suit itself the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Punjab Dairy Development Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC733Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 298/C.E./Ch-g/85, dated 29-4-1985, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The respondents are M/s. Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited.2. The respondents were having a L-6 licence under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They brought a heavy duty ammonia compressor under concessional rate of Central Excise duty vide exemption Notification No. 93/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976. The said compressor was installed in their milk chilling centre. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Pathankot held that for the purpose of Central Excise duty concession, 'factory' means where the manufacturing process is carried on and the area where exciseable goods are stored and that it meant only the premises where the excisable goods are stored and the premises which have been licenced under Central Excise Rules for the manufacture and storage of such goods only. He confirmed...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Bhargava Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52ITD49(Delhi)
1. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of DCIT(A), - Range-I, New Delhi dated 6-2-1992 mainly on the ground that the personal pay granted to the assessee for undergoing Vasectomy operation is exempt under Section 10 and does not fall within the definition of "income" and that the DCIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of compulsory deduction from salary towards Provident Fund which deduction has overriding title on the salary.2. The assessee filed the return of income on 29-4-1988 declaring the net income of Rs. 28,488. In response to notice under Section 143(2) the assessee filed written submissions before the Assessing Officer in support of claims made by him with reference to special pay and certain compulsory deductions made from salary on account of contributions towards CGHS, CGEIS and PF. The Assessing Officer without much discussion on the aforesaid exemption claimed by the assessee, disallowed the amount of Rs. 106 towards contribution to CGHS, Rs. 960...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Takshila Handloom Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)51ITD557(Delhi)
1. The appeal of the revenue is directed against the order dated 22nd January, 1990 of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak. The dispute is relating to allocation of share amongst the partners of the firm.2. The assessee had made a claim under Section 32AB which was allowed by the Assessing Officer in computing income of the firm. This deduction, however, was added back for the purpose of apportionment of shares amongst the partners. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed to the first appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon a decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Karnal, in the case of M/s. Life International, Karnal allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer not to include the deduction allowed to the firm under Section 32AB while making the share allocation. The revenue is aggrieved.3. It was contended before us that under Section 32AB deduction is permissible t...
Tag this Judgment!Olympus (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)876; 56(1994)DLT570
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) These are several applications pending for consideration. Each of the application has sought for an ad-interim injunction against the defendant Desu from disconnecting the electric supply to the petitioner and restraining the alleged illegal recovery. In the main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 this Court has appointed Mr. G.C. Jain, a former Judge of this Court to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the parties. The Arbitrators seized of the proceedings. The proceedings before this Court are contained to interim reliefs during the pendency of the proceedings before the Arbitrator.(2) The subject matter of controversy between the parties are three, namely (i)the recovery of minimum guarantee charges plus the energy charges, (ii) the low power factor charges and (iii) the load violation charges. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C.D. v. Asian Art ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT338
Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this application under Older 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short Civil Procedure Code the Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') wants the decree, passed by this court in favor of the respondent pursuance to an award having been made a rule of the Court, be set aside. (2) In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the applicant-DDA, the brief facts of the case are that award made and published by Shri J. K. Varashneya, the sole arbitrator dated 20th October, 1992 was ordered to be filed in the Court. The said award was filed in the court on 31st March, 1993. The petitioner accepted the notice of filing of the award but did not file any objections. The respondent/D.D.A. who was also served with the notice of the filling of the award on 28th May, 1993, did not file any objection to the award, within the statutory poriod. As a result the said award was made a rule of the Court on 21st September, 1993. The petitioner decree holder filed an e...
Tag this Judgment!