Delhi Court May 1996 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.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Snia Fibre Spa (Snia Fibre Sp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)554
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A. M. :Both the Revenue as also the assessed are in cross appeals against common order dt. 30th Aug., 1989, of the learned CIT(A) for the two assessment years. These appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in directing that r. 26 of the IT Rules be applied for the purpose of computing the income of the assessee. The assessed has taken the following additional ground in its Appeal No. 7061 before us, which is linked with the ground taken by the Department :'That the CIT(A) having held that the rate of exchange for conversion should be as on the date of deduction of tax, erred in directing that the same be adopted as on the date of remittance.'Since the above additional ground of appeal taken by the assessed does not require investigation into the facts and is purely legal in nature the same is allowed to be raised.2.1 The relevant facts ...
Namo Narayan Agarwal Vs. Wealth Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)544
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A. M. :Both these appeals involve consideration of some common points, hence, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The assessed has raised the following identical grounds in these two appeals :'1. That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in including value of agricultural land in the taxable wealth of the appellant.2. That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing, inter alia, that the land was not agricultural land on the date of valuation and that no agricultural operations were carried on during the period preceding the date of valuation.3. That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the valuation of the agricultural land at Rs. 38,59,083 when the land had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.'3. The WTO, Bareilly, determined the value of land (amount receivable from Bareilly Development Authority) at Rs. 38,59,083 as against the asse...
Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT529TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. India Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd., the issue for our consideration is whether when as a consequence of classification, decision in favour of the assessee refund has to be granted, then whether the assessable value has to be re-determined. The goods under consideration were classified under Item No. 16B and duty was paid by the assessee accordingly. Subsequently, it was held that the goods were classifiable under Item No. 68; the assessee filed a refund claim which was paid to them. Subsequently the department alleged that while sanctioning refund, the assessable value should have been re-determined and to the extent of the refund, the excise duty should have been charged and to that extent, refund amount should have been reduced.2. The ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras rejected the appeal of the appellants before him, on the ground that it was not a case of reopening of the assessment but a case of exclusion of excise amount charged by the ass...
Ashoka Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT373TriDel
1. Both these appeals were filed by M/s. Ashoka Industries being aggrieved with the Order-in-appeal dated 21-3-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The matter relates to the classification of the product which had been described in the document as Brass Tubes. After the goods were assessed to Customs Duty including the countervailing duty under Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff, the appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods imported were not brass tubes but were brass rods. It was their contention that the C.V. Duty was not leviable under Item No. 26A of the Central Excise Tariff but the correct classification should have been under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Customs (Appeals ) after going through the submissions made by the appellants had observed that the appellants had not submitted any evidence/literature in support of their contention that the goods were hollow brass rods. He held that in the absence...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shiv Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT174TriDel
1. Shri Haja Muhideen, learned JDR at the outset submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed their appeal under Final Order No.1007/95-NB on the ground that no one was present when the matter was called.2. The learned JDR submitted that on 2-11-1995 when the above appeal was fixed for hearing the notice for hearing was received on 2-11-1995; that it was not possible to muster additional strength by with drawing departmental representative from other Benches that there was no adequate strength of departmental representatives on that date he therefore prayed that the appeal may be restored.3. Ms. Ginny Bedi, learned Counsel does not object. Heard considered. I find that there is force in what the learned JDR submitted that strength of departmental representatives is very limited and whenever benches are created only a short notice is given. Therefore it is not possible to rearrange the work and also to effectively represent the department. In the circumstances I find that there was su...
Collector of Customs Vs. Xlo Machine Tools Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT375TriDel
1. In all these appeals, Revenue is the appellants. As the issue is common in all the three appeals, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. M/s. Precision Tools & Components : In this case the importer had furnished provisional Duty Bond under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were provisionally assessed under benefit of Sr. No.2 of Customs Notification No. 40/78. They prayed for final assessment under Sr. No. 2 of Customs Notification in respect of imported goods which has been described in the Bill of Entry as "Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring Machine Type-WKV 100 Table Size 1000 X 1600". In the invoice it has been described as "Precision Jig-boring machine on the basis of the machine model 24K400F4 complete with various items as described in the invoice". The Sr. No. 2 of the Customs Notification No. 40/78 reads as : "Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring Machine with or without C.N.C." The importer relied on DGTD letter No. DT-...
Gyanendra Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi58
ORDERDr. M. K. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by two Advocates practicing in Delhi challenging the actions of the respondents in re-promulgating about 10 ordinances by the President of India on March 26th and March 27th, 1996, which have come into force on 7-4-1996 on the ground that the said actions are unconstitutional and beyond the scope and power under Art. 123 of the Constitution of India. The details of the promulgation and promulgation of the aforesaid 10 Ordinances could be summarised by the following table. The table indicates in the case of each of the 10 Ordinances, the title of the Ordinance, thedate of first and second promulgation and also the date of the third promulgation where it applies :--ORDINANCE1STPROMULGATION 2ND 3RD1.Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996.11.10.05.01.9627.03.962.Employees Provident Fund and MiscellaneousProvisions AmendmentOrdinance, 1996.11.10.9505.01.9627.03.963.Buildingand other Construction Workers (Regulation ofEmp...
Kulbir Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi12; [1997]88CompCas586(Delhi)
ORDERDr. M. K. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 4th July, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judgein I.As. 6511, 6588/1985 and Suit No. 1627/ 1985, disposing of the aforesaid proceedings declining to modify the order dated 7-10-1986 passed in Suit No. 1627/1985 and maintaining the decree passed therein and further holding that the decree would be available for execution only against the Hind Cycles Ltd., the company. 2. Hind Cycles Ltd. was a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. With regard to the conduct of the business of the said company, the Central Government conducted an investigation as provided for under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1951'). On completion of the investigation and having formed an opinion thereafter that it was being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest, issued a notification on 3rd January, 1974 in exercise ...
Monika Enterprises Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT172
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to refrain from conducting re-auction of the shop No.24, 1st Floor, Csc Basant Enclave, Self financing Group Housing Scheme, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop in question'). The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent to accept the petitioner's bid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. (2) It is beyond the pale of controversy that the shop in question was advertised by the Dda for sale by public auction. The petitioner made a bid of Rs.3,81,000.00 which was accepted as the highest bid by the officer conducting the auction. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 95,250.00 being an amount of earnest money The bid was put up before the Vice Chairman-DDA for acceptance. The Vice Chairman has not accepted the bid. The auction was conducted under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul ...
R.A. Bhujwala Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR320
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the interim application filed by them seeking to restrain the Mcd from acting upon its orders/notices dated 19.8.1994 and demolishing any part of the property of the plaintiffs/ appellants situated at C-191, Sarvodaya Enclave.(2) The puffs. filed a suit for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain defendants 1 & 2 from acting upon the order/notice dated 19.8.1994 wherein it was ordered that the aforesaid premises would be demolished u/S. 343(1) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act). The puffs. arc the owners and occupiers of the ground floor including the basement, the first floor and second floor of building No. C-191, Sarvodaya Enclave. The defts. issued a notice u/S. 349 of the Act requiring the puffs. to vacate the portions in their occupation stating that certain portions of the ground floor and second floor have been built in violation of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »