Delhi Court November 1994 Judgments

Satinder Bhalla Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52ITD403(Delhi)

1. There are two effective grounds of appeal on which the assessee has agitated the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 3-12-1990 for the assessment year 1987-88. The department has also filed a cross-appeal pertaining to the same assessment year. As the common issues are involved, they are disposed of by a common order.2. Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the assessee explaining the circumstances in which the addition of Rs. 6,22,795 came to be sustained out of an addition of Rs. 7,98,717 submitted that the assessee is an individual who was in employment with various companies as an Executive Officer including that of Jyotsna Holding (P.) Ltd. till March 1986. On 14-3-1986 the assessee entered into an agreement as a result of which he agreed to act as a consultant to Morocco company, i.e., Office Cherifier Des Phosphate, Casablanca of Morocco (OCP). The company is a supplier of fertilizers intermediates to various concerns in private ...

Pramila Malhotra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the deceased Shri Subhash Chander Malhotra had taken two Life Insurance policies from the respondent (LIC) in 1987. The L.I.C. issued two policies Nos. 110405187 for Rs. 75,000/- and No. 110405184 for Rs. 25,000/- on 15-5-87. 2. It is contended that both the policies were issued after medical examination and full satisfaction of the respondent as per their requirement. It is further contended that the insured continued to make regular payment of premiums from 1987 till his death in January '90. 3. It has been stated by the complainant that the insured Shri Subhash Chander Malhotra died on 24-1-90 due to kidney failure leaving behind his wife, (the complainant) along with his three school going children. In terms of the two Life Insurance Policies of her deceased, husband the complainant approached the LIC (respondent) to settle the claim amounting to Rs. 1 lac. However, the respondent repudiated their liability on the ...

Pee Jay Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Del)499

ORDERMISS MOKSH MAHAJAN, A.M. :The order of the CIT(A), dt. 16th Jan., 1990 for asst. yr. 1986-87 has been challenged on various grounds of appeal. Shri Vivek Mehra appeared on behalf of the assessed and Shri D. S. Sallan represented the Department.2. The first contention pertains to rejection of the assesseds claim in respect of administrative charges of Rs. 3,45,000 claimed as bad debts. Explaining the facts, Shri Vivek Mehra, the learned counsel for the assessed submitted that the assessed has been charging administrative charges of Rs. 45,000 per month from its sister concern, namely, Universal Marble Industries (P) Ltd. These charges were for rendering administrative and other assistance and also for use of common facilities like telephone, electricity and water, free furnishing of air-conditioned office premises and photostat, etc. The concerned office is located at 28, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. These administrative charges were duly accounted for as an income for the respecti...

Sadiq A. Futehally Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT305TriDel

1. These are applications for modification of the order dated 4-3-1994 passed by the Tribunal in which the applicants herein were directed to deposit a total amount of Rs. 16 lakhs in cash and another equal amount by way of Bank Guarantee in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 within 16 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.Compliance was to be reported after 20 weeks from the date of issue of the order. The learned Senior Counsel Shri A. Hidayatullah appearing alongwith the learned Counsel Shri M.P. Baxi submitted that the applicants by the present application are seeking to modify the stay order as aforesaid. The learned Counsel also informed that the applicants had challenged the stay order of the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court but their petition has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court dated July 4, 1994 holding that the High Court do not find any error in the Tribunal's stay order. The Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicants would plead f...

ideal Printers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC236Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue arising for consideration in these appeals being identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The appeals filed by M/s Ideal Printers were earlier heard by a three-Member Bench when the following points were raised on behalf of the appellants : (i) Once an order of refund had been passed by the Asstt. Collector, he is not competent to issue a notice under Rule 10 for demanding back the said amount of refund. Since such an order passed by the Asstt. Collector can be reviewed only under Section 35-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the competent authority. (ii) Whether the printed cartons to be treated as products of the printing industry and therefore, liable to exemption in terms of Notification No. 55/75 (as amended).3. On the question whether after an order for refund had been passed, notice could be issued under Rule 10 by Asstt. Collector demanding back the erroneous refund, Shri EC. Jain, the ld. Member Technical, who recorded the order, held a...

Jkhpmc Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC469Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 25-2-1988 rejecting the appeal as time-barred. Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that Assistant Collector's order was despatched to the appellant on 28-10-1986 whereas the appeal has been filed by the appellants on 3-8-1987 i.e. after a period of six months.2. Factual background : The appellants imported 12 Crates and one case of Apple Grading Equipment vide Bill of Entry No. 1603, dated 14-6-1982 and found that there was shortage of goods. The appellants in their appeal memo said that they claimed refund of duty vide application dated 3-9-1982 filed through their Customs House Agent M/s. Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. Bombay for shortages. The Asstt. Collector in his order dated 28-10-1986 rejected the claim on the ground that "The Agents are not entitled to file an appeal or claim of refund in their own name and right in relation to imports, export...". Since in the present case the refund ...

Mysore Breweries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT89TriDel

1. The application herein is arising out of the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Madras by which he had finalised the provisional assessment as regards the assessable value of the goods imported, namely, hops, and also adjudicated the matter ' and levied redemption fine on the goods. The learned Counsel referred to the demand notice issued in this case by the Customs House which reads as follows :- "Bill of entry finally assessed as per Collector's order on adjudication the value of the consignment fixed as DM 97200 (CIF) as against the declared value of DM 57706 (CIF). The goods are liable for confiscation under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were allowed provisional clearance. You have undertaken to pay a fine and penalty and also executed a bond for the above said purpose. The Collector, therefore, quantified the redemption fine as Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) in view of confiscation which has to be paid by you against the bond executed. As...

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and Others Vs. Director-general of Income-tax and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]221ITR818(Delhi)

1. On November 10, 1994, after hearing the case for some time learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Rajendra, stated that the Department offers to return the books and the jewellery subject to the Department making copies of the books. The matter was adjourned to toady. Today learned counsel states that the copies have been made but the petitioner has not been co-operating by signing the copies and the petitioner should be directed to sign the copies. 2. We do not think so. We cannot compel the petitioner to sign the copies. This is a case where there is a considerable delay in retaining the books without authority of law and, thereforee, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court, the Department should have returned the books and we should have directed the return of the books. Since the Department has thought fit to make copies, it is for the Department to get them authenticated in any manner known to law. We cannot direct the petitioner to sign the copies. No doubt in a few cases a...

Sukumar Chand JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ677

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, registered as a suit.(2) Consequent to a tender of the petitioner for certain construction work having been accepted by the respondent contract No. 10/EE/RPD-6/DDA/DDA/85-86 was executed between the parties. Disputes have arisen between the parties at the end of the contract. Disputes raised by the petitioner putting forth certain claims not accepted by the respondents have been set out in para 6 of the petition. The petitioner has sought for reference of disputes to adjudication by arbitrator in accordance with Clause 25 of the Contract between the parties. According to the arbitration clause disputes arising out of the contract between the parties are liable to be referred to the sole arbitration of a person appointed by the Engineer Member of Dda at the time of dispute. However, a sub para of the arbitration clause reads as under : 'IT is also a term of the contract that if the contractor(s) does/d...

Gourhari Das and anr. Vs. the State (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)942; 56(1994)DLT670; 1994(31)DRJ648

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) At the instance of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case under section 120B read with sections 417, 419, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners who have been arrested in the said case have now applied for bail. (2) A bird-eye view of the background is called for. (3) L.N. Pradhan who is also an accused in the case, filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court on February 1, 1994 against an order of the Orissa High Court. The said Special Leave Petition was prepared by Mr.Mohanty and Mr.P.K. Jena, Advocates. It was mentioned before 1310 The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Mohan on February 3, 1994 when notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. However, later it was revealed that the District Collector, Balasore had received 649 a telegram purported to have been sent by the Supreme Court through its Joint Registrar. That telegram was as under: 'Ref. O J C 9...