Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 3 of about 156 results (0.023 seconds)Prahlad Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)345
ORDERSMT MOKSH MAHAJAN A.M. :The orders of the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 were challenged by the assessed raising various grounds. As common issues are involved in these appeals, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The first ground of appeal pressed relating to asst. yr. 1982-83 is in respect of addition of Rs. 60,000 made to the trading account. Explaining the circumstances in which the addition came to be made, it is submitted by Shri Sapra, the learned authorised representative that the assessed derives income from manufacture and sale of woollen yarn from rags. For asst. yr. 1982-83, it declared gross profit rate of 25.8% on total sales of Rs. 53,95,132. After finding that the addition was made in the earlier assessment year, the addition of Rs. 60,000 was made in the trading account. This was for the various reasons as summarised by the learned CIT(A) in his order. To put it briefly the manufacturing register and raw material register showed that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT472TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Pratap Engineering Works Limited, Jaipur, against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-9-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel balls of varying diameters. Prior to 28-2-1986, the goods were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Tariff'). The appellant claimed exemption thereon as parts of cycles, under Notification No. 102/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. On denial of the exemption, a writ petition was filed in the Rajasthan High Court, and the Hon. High Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. In the de novo proceedings, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, accepted the claim of the appellant. The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue against the aforementioned order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur....
Tag this Judgment!Complex Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT698TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector, New Delhi confiscating 11.250 MTs of steel ingots cleared without payment of duty and 31.660 MTs of steel ingots not accounted for in the statutory records, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, levying duty of Rs. 4311.56 on steel ingots cleared without payment of duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants. In addition the truck used for transporting the goods without payment of duty was also confiscated with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16/17-6-1988 Preventive Officers of Central Excise Division I, New Delhi intercepted the appellant's truck bearing registration No. DIL 740 containing 125 pieces of steel ingots valued at Rs. 66,000/- and involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4311.56, which was seized together with the truck under the reasonable belief of their liability to confiscation, since the ...
Tag this Judgment!Zenith Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT267TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28-7-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants filed a Classification List effective from 13-3-1980 in which they declared 'Micrometers' falling under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption of the said goods in terms of Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 which covered "Drawing and mathematical instruments". By this order dated 4-12-1980 the Assistant Collector rejected the appellants' claim that 'micrometers' were mathematical instruments. While approving the classification of 'micrometers' under Tariff Item 68 he held that they were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) who by the impugned order confirmed the Assistant Collector's finding that 'micrometers' are not mathematical instrum...
Tag this Judgment!Nirav International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT173TriDel
1. M/s. Nirav International, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'Nirav') being aggrieved with the orders bearing Numbers 77/94-AP and 78/94-AP, both dated 30-12-1993, both passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, have filed two separate appeals. As both the appeals cover the same grounds, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Nirav had imported from a Shipper in Hong Kong, in September/October 1991, the goods declared as disperse dyes Blue/red.The value of the two consignments was declared as Rs. 81,378/- and Rs. 81,430/- respectively. The goods were declared to be of China origin.They did not file the requisite details, such as name of the manufacturer, type or variety of the dyes, their colour index number, concentration etc., required for the purpose of assessment of value, under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Valuation Rules'). The packages were not ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. R.C. Bhalla and Another Vs. N.C. Bhalla and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi24
ORDER1. M/s. H. R. Bhalla and Sons (P.) Ltd (in short H.R.B.) was a family concern of late Shri H. R. Bhalla, father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. After his death, disputes arose between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 with regard to the business affairs and the properties. All the parties by an agreement dated 7th April, 1984 appointed Sh. P. N. Khanna (retired Judge of this Court) as the Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. The Arbitrator made his award on 25th December, 1984 which was called the Interim Award. Petitioners filed a petition which was listed as OMP. No. 205/85. This Court after hearing the parties on the said interim Award observed that since the parties could not arrive at any decision hence the implementation of the interim award became difficult. thereforee, with the consent of the parties, the award was remitted to the Arbitrator vide order dated 23rd May, 1985 to decide the manner in which and the time when the di...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1217
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. Prem Chand s/o Sher Singh, Mahinder s/o Maha Singh, Kamal Singh s/o Daulat Ram, Raj Kumar alias Raju s/o Hari Singh and one Mohd. Kamil were challaned by the police after registering a F.I.R. No.275/88 on 13th March, 1990 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On the evidence led before him the learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellants Prem Chand, Mahinder in Cr. Appeal No. 71/90, appellant Kamal Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 91/90 and appellant Raj Kumar alias Raju in Cr. Appeal No. 125/90 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and has sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life whereas he acquitted accused Mohd. Kamil of the offences with which he was charged. As these three appeals are arising out of one and the same Session's case No. 26/89, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the 18th Septe...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Anand Vs. U.O.i. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT495; 1995RLR428
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Rule D.B. Only a short question is involved in this case. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we proceed to dispose of this writ petition. (2) Petitioner, Along with other candidates had appeared in Delhi Judicial Service Examination held in the year 1980. Though successful in the examination the petitioner was not given appointment as there was miscalculation in calculating the Scheduled Caste vacancies. The petitioner had filed legal proceedings and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment delivered on 22.8.1994 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2962 of 1981 titled Dal Chand Anand v. Union of India & Others, passed the following effective order : 'WE accordingly direct that the High Court and Delhi Administration will take expeditious steps for notifying the appointments of the petitioners, Dal Chand Anand and Prem Prakash, to the Delhi Judicial Service. For purposes of seniority the former will rank higher than the latter because that was their or...
Tag this Judgment!Dipika Arora Vs. S.N. Sehgal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1093; 58(1995)DLT729; 1995RLR219
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioner claiming to be the owner/landlord of premises No. M-134, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition against the respondents under clause (e) to Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was filed on 14/05/1982. After a protracted trial it was dismissed by the Addl.Rent Controller vide judgment dated 22.1.1990. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the Additional Rent Controller in the present proceedings.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the premises in suit was let out to the respondents by the mother of the petitioner in February 1969 in pursuance of an agreement of lease for Ii months entered into between the parties on 23/05/1971.Vide gift deed dated 29/03/1971 the property in suit was gifted by the mother of the petitioner. The gift deed is a duly registered document. The property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner in the recor...
Tag this Judgment!Salwan Construction Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53TTJ(Del)39
ORDERG. D. AGRAWAL, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is against the order of the CIT(A) - IV, New Delhi, who confirmed the levy of interest under s. 201(1A) by the Assessing Officer.2. The facts of the case are that the assessed is a registered firm engaged in contract business. The assessed was awarded two contracts one by Air India and another by M/s Modipon. The assessed assigned the contract awarded by Air India to Salwan Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the assessed was entitled to receive commission @ 2.5% of the receipts. The assessed also assigned the contract awarded by M/s Modipon to M/s Amarjit Singh, HUF and the assessed was entitled to receive commission @ 5%. The gross receipts from the contract awarded by Air India were Rs. 2,93,61,361 while from the contract of M/s Modipon Rs. 4,37,520. As per Assessing Officer, the assessed was required to deduct TDS @1% from the payment made to the sub-contractors as per provision of s. 194C(2). The Assessing Officer held that the asse...
Tag this Judgment!