Delhi Court April 1996 Judgments

K.E. Hansen Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1987-88. The only dispute in this appeal is that the living allowance received by the assessee is exempt under section 10 (14) of the I. T. Act, 1961.2. In pursuance of an agreement between M/s. Haldor Topsoe A/s of Denmark and National Fertilizers Ltd., the assessee was deputed by the former for the fertilizer project at Bijapure on 5-7-1985. His appointment for a period of two years up to 4-7-1987 was approved by Government of India as technician under section 10 (6) (viia) of the Income-tax Act. Besides salary in Danish Kroner equivalent of Rs. 3,04,870, paid by the Danish company in Denmark, the assessee was paid by National Fertilizers Ltd. a living allowance of Rs. 260 per day aggregating to Rs. 79,040 during the year under consideration for meeting his living expenses. The assessee claimed the same to be exempt under section 10 (14) of the I. T. Act as the amou...

Rattan Prakash Vs. Smt. Bela Sihare

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi356

ORDER1. In this revision petition, a short question which needs consideration is whether a 'son' includes a 'step-son' within the meaning of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act.2. First, the facts which led to the present revision petition. Father of the plaintiff/ petitioner Lachhman Prasad married twice during his lifetime. The petitioner and his brother Mahender Prakash were born out of marriage of Lachhman Prasad with Smt. Kala Wati. After the death of Smt. Kala Wati, Shri Lachhman Prasad married Smt. Hasmukh Wati. Out of the wedlock of Lachhman Prasad and Smt. Hasmukh Wati the second wife, one daughter namely Bela, the respondent was born. Shri Lachhman Prasad died on 1st November, 1951 leaving behind Smt. Hasmukh Wati as his widow, the petitioner Shri Rattan Prakash and his brother Shri Mahender Prakash and his step-sister Bela. After the death of Lachhman Prasad, the property left by him was partitioned amongst Smt. Hasmukh Wati, Rattan Prakash, and Mahender Prakash and each was ...

Mrs. Sunita Singal Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]220ITR605(Delhi)

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order, dt. 14th March, 1988, made by the fourth respondent the ITO, Special Circle II, Jalandhar, and the order dt. 28th Feb., 1989, passed by the second respondent the CIT, Central Revenue Building, Jalandhar, and also seeks an order directing the respondents to release and hand over the jewellery alleged to be belonging to the petitioner which was seized on 14th March, 1988. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under : The petitioner was married to Shri Suresh Singal on 27th Nov., 1987. After her marriage, she resided with her husband at the house of her father-in-law, Shri Prithipal Singal at 34/56, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi. The petitioner claims that at the time of her marriage, she had brought 454.2 grams of gold ornaments to the house of her in-laws. It is the case of the petitioner that she had acquired the ornaments from her personal income which were duly declared before the ...

Krishan Chand Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)413; 1996(38)DRJ397

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a petition for review of the judgment and order dated 28th March 1995 rendered in Cwp No.1985/94. By that order, the Writ Petition of the petitioner seeking complete expunction of his confidential reports 6/86, 6/88, 5/89 and 9/89 recorded by the Initiating Officers and the Reviewing Officers and seeking promotion to the post of Colonel was dismissed. The petitioner who appeared in person presented the following written submissions for review of the aforesaid order: 'I)Existence of nexus against the petitioner between Initialing Officers and Reviewing Officers of the impugned reports. ii) Impugned reports initiated/reviewed malafidely and established the de facto adverse with documentary evidence on inflationary reporting. iii) Reviewing Officer's report is always based on Initiating Officer's report, balance portion of the Cr 5/89 thereforee, is untenable on this ground alone. iv) Ultimate affect adverse per se of confidential reports.'(2) The petitioner...

Shyam Sunder Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997CriLJ35

Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) CONVICT/APPELLANT (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) through the present appeal has challenged his conviction recorded by an Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated July 31, 1992 and August 18, 1992.(2) It would be just and proper to refer to a few facts which led to the present appeal before embarking upon a detailed discussion of the questions of law and facts which arise for decision in the present appeal. Hc Pratap Singh (Public Witness 9) was posted at Police Station Anand Parbat in December 1987. He Along with Constables Rajbir (Public Witness 14) and Rambir was on his usual patrol duty in the area of Ps Anand Parbaton December' 8, 1987 in the evening. While they were remaining to the police station they passed by the side of house No.'A-74, 'Punjabi Basti, Baljit Nagar, Delhi at about 11.00 P.M. A girl known as Om Wati (PW 5) who was standing on the gate of the said house called them. They immediat...

Ratan Perkash Vs. Bela Sihare

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996RLR335

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) In this Revision Petition, a short question which needs consideration is whether a 'son' includes a 'step-son' within the meaning of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act. (2) First, the facts Father of the plaintiff/petitioner Lachhman Prasad married twice during his lifetime. The petitioner and his brother Mahender Prakash were born out of marriage of Lachman Prakash with Kala Wati. After the death of Kala Wati, Shri Lachhman Prasad married Hasmukh Wati. Out of the wed luck of Lachhman Prasad and Hasmukh Wati the second wife, one daughter namely Bela, the respondent was born. Shri Lachhman Prasad died on 1.11.51 leaving behind Hasmukh Wati as his widow, the petitioner. Rattan Prakash and his brother Mahender Prakash and his step-sister Bela. After the death of Lachhman Prasad, the property left by him was partitioned amongst Hasmukh Wati, Rattan Prakash and Mahender Prakash and each was given one-third share by virtue of an award given by Shri Bhagwan Dass, Advocate....

Raj Kumari Vs. State Transport Aappellate Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)417; 63(1996)DLT179; 1996(38)DRJ381; (1996)114PLR27; 1996RLR262

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated January 30, 1996 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal No-296/95 and also order dated December 14, 1995 passed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi. The petitioner was granted Stage Carriage Permit in respect of bus No.DL-1P-2285 by the State Transport Authority. On October 21, 1995 at about 4.35 p.m. the bus of the petitioner was found to be parked diagonally Along with another Red Line Bus and the staff of both the buses were having a scuffle with one another on the road. An Fir was lodged against the driver of the bus under Sections 160/283/504 Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Mayapuri. It appears that the driver of the petitioner was convicted and was misrepresente (2) I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Chapter V of the Act deals with the control of the transport vehicles. Section 66(1) of t...

Ganesh Exports Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT134TriDel

1 This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-6-1994 of the Collector (Appeals), Customs, New Delhi.2. The issue involved in this case is whether the goods imported by the appellants claimed to be "artificial fur cloth", which were claimed to be "long pile fabrics" by the customs could be described as consumer goods, the import of which at the material time was restricted under the Import Control Policy then in force.3. The appellants were represented by Shri G.L. Rawal, Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Advocate. The Revenue was duly represented by Shri Ram Sharan, JDR.4. The ld. Advocate claimed that the impugned goods could not be brought under the description in entry at Sl. No. 172 of Appendix-2B.This entry covered consumer goods. Referring to the definition of consumer goods as given in Chapter-I of the Policy, he claimed that in order to fall in this category, the goods had to directly used without further processing. He said that appellants have imported these go...

Eupharma Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT47TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. F. No. V-2 (14E) 348/R/88 of Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue relates to classification of "Sulphacetamide Eye Drops B.P.L. 20%.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Advocate submits that in the Show Cause Notice issued to them the department had proposed to classify the impugned product under sub-heading 3003.19 of Central Excise Tariff.They have, however, contended that their products were medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or Bio-chemic systems and were, therefore, correctly classified under Heading 3003.20 under which duty chargeable was nil. This was accepted by the Deputy Collector vide his order dated 19-10-1987 who dropped the proceedings after holding that these phar-macopoeial products are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20. Against this order of the Deputy Collector an appeal under Section 35E(4) of the Central ...

Corporate Channels India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)500; AIR1996Delhi375; 1996(37)DRJ261

D.K. Jain, J. (1) Keeping in view the urgency of the matter, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition at this stage itself.(2) The petitioners, manufacturers of tube rings, (one of the contra ceptive devices used in female sterilisation), under the brand name 'EVE'S', have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider their product for purchase and distribution to the public along with the product of other suppliers. They also seek a writ of prohibition restraining the said respondent from placing order for purchase of tube rings which do not conform to standards specified by Bureau of Indian Standards (for short the BIS) and in particular restraining them from accepting against payment any supplies of Kli brand tube rings from respondent No.2 under the second purchase order placed in October 1994, until the pre-procurement sampling and testing ...