Delhi Court February 1994 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.
H.K. Mittal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)49ITD653(Delhi)
1. The appellant is an individual, is aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) in upholding the order of ACIT, Investigation Circle, Muzzafarnagar, has filed this appeal. The grievance of the appellant is that, the loan received by him from M/s Jagmohan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (henceforth referred to as JCPL), should not have been treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has filed this appeal.2. The appellant, had filed his return showing income from salary, professional income, interest income and agricultural income. The appellant had invested Rs. 1,25,77,800 on 10826 shares of Mercator Lines Ltd. (henceforth referred to as MLL). These shares were acquired between 30-12-1987 and 15-6-1988, from Ram Chandani & Family in lots of 975, 775, 1565, 1640, 3605 & 2265. The last two lots of 3605 and 2265 shares were purchased for a consideration of Rs. 44,16,125 and Rs. 27,74,625 respectively. The sources of acquisition of these two lots were expl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Monark P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Del)112; 1994(29)DRJ183; [1994]208ITR396(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. In these references, at the instance of the Revenue, relevant to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court, the following common question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of he case, the assessed was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act on payment of commission of Rs. 89,540 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 1,25,879 for the assessment year 1976-77 incurred in respect of export sales ?' 2. The material facts stated in the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are that the respondent-assessed, a domestic company, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bicycle components, cycle machines, etc., and during the relevant accounting years ended on May 31, 1974, and May 31, 1975, respectively, it carried on export business also. The assessed claimed weighted dedu...
Ashoka Machine Tools Corporation Vs. Bhartiya Udyogic General Kamgar U ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)833; 53(1994)DLT826; 1994(28)DRJ587; [1995(70)FLR238]; (1994)107PLR77
P.N. Nag, J. (1) is 6007/93 is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction against the defendants from making any demonstration/gherao/assembly/dharna within a radius of 400 yards of plaintiff's factory situated at A-15, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase l,Delhi and the residential houses bearing Nos. 146 and 130, Block J, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi and further causing any obstructions in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff's partners, staff and workers and other members concerned with the plaintiff or stopping any vehicle or for movement of the material taking in and taking out from the plaintiff's factory premises. This application was filed along with the suit. (2) Suit and the application, is 6007/93, came up for preliminary hearing before court on 7.7.1993. While admitting the suit and issuing notice of the application, this court on 7.7.1993 granted ex parte injunction ...
India Infusion Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC235Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved with the denial of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 171/90-Cus., dated 16-5-1990 by the authorities below, the appellants have preferred their present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellant's company, who is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture of Intravenous Solution in Asceptic Packing Form. For the production of Asceptic packing for Intravenous Solution, according to the appellants, a special plastic material known as "LUPOLEN 3020 D" Grade of Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) is fed in the Form-Fill and Seal Form Machine which produce Intravenous Solution in Asceptic Packaging Form. Since LDPE is not available in India the appellants imported the same under Bill of Entry No. IGM/Item-2655/157 and 2702/291 and filed Bill of Entry No.6976 dated 18-12-1990 and 8388 dated 21-12-1990 for clearance of the goods claiming benefit under Notification No. 171/90-Cus., dated 16-5-1990, as amended and submitted the copy of the ...
M. Janki Ram Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC618Tri(Delhi)
1. By this misc. application, the appellant is seeking for modification of the Stay Order No. C/51/93-B2, dt. 10-9-1993.2. By this stay order, the applicant had been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of the order and bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakhs.3. By this misc. application, the applicant has attempted to explain the reason for his not filing a counter-affidavit to the affidavit which had been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay with regard to his financial position. He has submitted that Shri Subhash Gupta was In-charge of the affairs of the company and he was not instrumental nor did he have the knowledge of the various violations committed by AWRL.He had also rebutted the statement of Shri Kumud J. Dharia. He has stated that he is not in a position to pre-deposit the huge penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs and in the circumstances, he prays for recall of the said order. The applicant has also filed a detailed affidavit as a rebuttal...
Collector of Customs Vs. Omex (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC231Tri(Delhi)
1. The present Reference Application filed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, emerges from the Tribunal's Order No. A/450/1992-NRB dated 30-10-1992. The said Reference Application was presented in the Registry on 29-10-1993. In Col. 6 of the memo of Reference Application vide Form No. C.A. 6, the date of communication of the order has been mentioned as 19-1-1993. In view of the provisions of Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, a Reference Application has to be presented within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Thus the last date for filing of the Reference Application was 20-3-1993, whereas the same was received in the Registry on 29-10-1993. Thus there is a delay of 222 days. The applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay. The applicant has also attached a time chart with the application for condonation of delay.2. Notice of hearing was issued to the parties. Shri M.M. Mathur, the learned Jt. CDR, has appeared on behalf of the applicant and...
Patliputra Tobacco Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT519TriDel
1. By the present application, the appellants have made a prayer for modification of the Interim Order No. 367/93-A dated 3-11-1993.Incidentally, a Stay Order No. 336 to 368/1993-A, dated 22-12-1993 has also been issued. Shri N.R. Khaitan, the learned Advocate with Ms.Rohina Nath, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and reiterated the contentions made in the miscellaneous application where a prayer has been made for modification of the order. Shri Khaitan further pleaded that the order passed by the Tribunal may be modified to the extent that the pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be dispensed with without insisting either for cash deposit or bank guarantee. Shri Khaitan pleaded for the acceptance of the miscellaneous application.Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR objected to the modification of the stay order and stated that till date, neither any deposit nor bank guarantee has been furnished by the appellants and there are no changed circumstances from the last date o...
Award Packaging Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT51TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11-2-1988 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons falling under Item 17(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff filed a classification list in respect of "Printed Mill Board, Boxes and Printed Mill Board Cartons" and claimed exemption of these products from payment of duty under Notification No. 279/82 read with Notification No. 48/83 dated 1-3-1983. The samples of the appellants' products were drawn for test by the Deputy Chief Chemist.In his report dated 11-9-1984 the Deputy Chief Chemist stated that the sample was in the form of Grey Board printed on one side. The appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 31-5-1985 demanding duty amounting to Rs. 13,473.25 on the cartons cleared during the period February, 1985 and March, 1985 on the grounds that the cartons in question being made of Grey Boar...
Jay Kay and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT545TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay confiscating a consignment of Khaskhas as being covered by Sl. No. 5 of Appendix 5B of the 1984-85 Import Policy as canalised item and denying clearance as claimed under the OGL Appendix 6 Part HI List 8 for stock and sale.2. We have heard Ms. Sangeeta Jain, learned Counsel and Shri K.N.Gupta, learned SDR.3. The appellants submit that the goods are not oil seeds falling under Appendix 5B Item 5 as they cannot be planted for further growth of a crop nor oil can be extracted from them and only those seeds which can be used for planting and/or from which oil can be extracted fall within the purview of Sl. No. 5 Appendix 5B. The appellants claim that they are actual users industrial of the item for manufacture of Ayurvedic/Unani medicines. Learned Counsel draws our attention to letter dated 25-4-1984 of the State Trading Corporation to the effect that the import of Khaskhas is not canalised through ...
Maya Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT817TriDel
1. M/s. Maya Enterprises, Kashmere Gate, Delhi have filed the present appeal against the order-in-original No. KCH/Collr./14/91, dt.8-3-1991, passed by the Collector of Customs, Kandla.2. M/s. Maya Enterprises, the importers have imported evaporators for car air-conditioning, from Singapore during the year 1990. In the show cause notice dt. 8-12-1990 issued to the importers it was alleged that: (1) the goods have been mis-declared : they were found to be complete cooling unit with blower assembly, as against the 'evaporator' declared; (2) the value of the goods has been under-declared with a view to evade payment or appropriate customs duty; and (3) the subject goods have been imported unauthorisedly in as much as they were not covered by the endorsement on the licence produced for clearance.3. It was also observed that some of the goods were without marks; in some cases markings were torn off in identical manner on all the sides.There were also some discrepancies with regard to the n...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »