Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments

Sukesh Vohra Vs. Sulekh Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)479; 67(1997)DLT604; 1997(42)DRJ449; 1997RLR366

Usha Mehra, J. (1) MS.SUKESH Vohra, the petitioner an unmarried woman doctor by profession. She was working as doctor in the Health Department of Government of U.K. She is the owner/landlady of premises bearing flat No.A-1/62, Azad Apartments, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. The said flat was let out by her to the present resent respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,300.00 . All her family members comprising of her mother sister and brother are residents of Delhi. At London she suffered arthrIT is of the joints. She experienced that on account of cold weather her arthrIT is problem aggravated and her conditions of joints deteriorated. She was advised by the specialists in London to live in a warmer climate because cold climate of London would adversely effect on her joints. With a view to settle in India she came in May, 1982 thinking that respondent's rent agreement was going to expire in February, 1983 she would occupy her house. But since the respondent did not vacate her flat hence she ...

Tek Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)31

ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J.M. :This appeal by the assessed for the asst. yr. 1981-82 is directed against order of Dy. CIT(A), Rohtak, upholding assessment of gain arising on sale of land and denial of exemption under s. 54B of IT Act.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that appellant along with his mother purchased agricultural land measuring 29 canals situated outside municipal limits of Rewari on 9th January, 1976, for total sum of Rs. 30,000. They got the land leveled and made it fit for cultivation. A Tubewell was also installed. In all total expenses of Rs. 26,670 were incurred. The aforesaid land was sold to members of Thathera Vikas (backward class), Mandals in asst. yr. 1981-82, for total consideration of Rs. 1,33,268. The AO held that the land was sold after cutting it into plots and, thereforee, assessed and his mother carried on an adventure in trade. The gain on sale was assessed as business income after allowing deduction towards cost and expenses. This led to assessment...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Molins of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT89TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 21-10-1987, by which the Collector (Appeals) has upheld the assessees' contention that the machine after overhauling and reconditioning continue to have the same identity and function as a plain cigarette machine. During the hearing before the Collector, the assessee had placed besides the evidence on record, another affidavit from Shri Kameshwar Prasad Nautiyal, Design Engineer of the assessee. Among other things the affidavit clarified that whereas a cigarette making machine of mark V Range consisted of over 3000 components, a cigarette making machine M.K. 8 range had over 4000 components. The appellants had further clarified that this process of overhauling, reconditioning and fitment of 5-8-5 kit to the mark V machine, only about 500 to 600 parts are replaced and replacement of so many parts becomes necessary in view of the fact that all the machines in mark V range are over forty years old. In that view, the Collector has concl...

G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT281TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 6-3-1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Kerala.2. The appellants imported "Rubber Roller cleaning machine". The primary function of this machine is to give periodical surface finish treatment of the rubber rollers used in the spinning mill. This machine was assessed under CTH 8479.89 read with Notification No. 162/89. The appellants subsequent to clearance filed a refund claim claiming the machine to be assessable under Heading No. 8448.00. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector and rejected the claim for assessment under Heading 8448.00. He also rejected the alternate plea for classification under Heading 8477.80. Hence this appeal.2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Manager for the appellant's company submits that rubber rollers are used in the textile mill to ensure smoothness of yarn. The rubber rollers in order to ensure their smoothness have ...

West Coast Traders Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT447TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 5-10-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. Appellant imported five consignments of parts of Earth Moving Machinery of USA origin through a supplier in UK and filed Bills of Entry dated 20-2-1990 (2 Bills of Entry), 18-12-1989 (2 Bills of Entry) and 12-4-1989 and declared value as Rs. 2,36,572/-, Rs. 1,19,298/-, Rs. 60,849/-, Rs. 1,10,896/-and Rs. 21,278/- respectively. The goods were assessed accepting the declared values and were cleared on payment of duty assessed. In respect of seven other consignments, Bills of Entry dated 25-4-1990 (5 Bills of Entry) and 12-4-1990 (2 Bills of Entry) were filed declaring value as Rs. 16,655.00, Rs. 3,96,480.00, Rs. 4,69,863.00, Rs. 2,84,017.00, Rs. 2,39,874.00, Rs. 3,557.00 and Rs. 54,245.00 respectively. The goods were manufactured by Allison Transmission USA (for short AT) for Detroit Diesel Corporation USA (for short, DDC), both being divisions of General Motors, USA. A...

Akays Exportos India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)64ITD61(Delhi)

1. In the various grounds of appeal, the assessee has contended that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has wrongly held that a transfer of assets chargeable to capital gain tax has taken place on the assessee's company contributing its assets valued at Rs. 17 lakhs towards the capital of the firm M/s. Acme Film Services.2. Shri C. S. Aggarwal who appeared on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a private limited company. In the assessment year 1984-85, it was a partner in the firm styled as M/s. Acme Film Services. Assessment year 1984-85 was the first year of business of the firm, namely, M/s. Acme Film Services, where the other partner was M/s.Jyoti Jain Investment and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. The partnership firm was constituted with effect from 18-8-1983 by Deed of Partnership executed on the same date. Before this, the assessee had been carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Acme Film Services as sole proprietor since November 1...

Akim Syed Ahmed Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT334

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) In this petition challenge is to the order dated 2/04/1997,passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,dismissing O.A. No. 2520/96 filed by the petitioner.(2) Facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass. On 1/01/1987, petitioner was appointed on monthly wage basis in Cghs and by an orderdated 28/06/1987, he was appointed as Medical Officer (Unani) on the strength of Cghs, Delhi, on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 dated 13/01/1996, inviting applications for the post of Medical Officer (Unani) in Cghs, the petitioner applied for that post by making application dated 23/01/1996which was duly acknowledged in the respondent'soffice vide receipt No. 448161 dated 23/01/1996. Subsequently, petitioner was allotted roll No. 326 vide letter dated 12/04/1996 by the respondent. It is alleged that on 3/12/1996 when the petitioner visited the office of the respondent to enquire about t...

Sudesh Kumar Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ623

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) Order, Annexure P-3/A, dated 27.1.1993 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 16th January, 1993 is under challenge in this petition. (2) The petitioner while posted as a Constable in Border Security Force proceeded on 30 days Earned Leave w.e.f. 9th May, 1992. After availing of leave he did not report for duty though he ought to have reported for duty on 9.6.1992. Petitioner's case is that he had applied for extension of leave due to his sickness whereas respondents case is that extension of leave was not sought. Respondents' version that on 16.7.1992 an intimation was sent to the petitioner to rejoin duty immediately, failing he was apprised that disciplinary action would be taken against him. Thereafter a Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 was ordered to inquire into the absence of the petitioner, but without awaiting the outcome thereof, it appears that the Deputy Inspector, Border Security Force, Jammu pr...

indira Transport Vs. Rattan Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)4; AIR1998Delhi2; 67(1997)DLT544; 1997(42)DRJ384; 1997RLR448

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Whether a receiver appointed in execution of a decree for partition of joint Hindu family property can be aided by the Court to remove persons not parties to the suit from possession over the property is the question arising for decision in this appeal.(2) The appellants are 12 in number. None was a party to the suit. Dr Rattan Lal Mandlaus, the respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for partition of joint Hindu family property against 9 defendants including one Smt Uma Devi. The plaintiff had claimed one-half share of property and had sought for its partition by metes and bounds separating, it from the other one-half which was the entitlement of all the defendants jointly. On 14.2.84, all the parties to the suit filed a compromise petition which was accepted by the Court and decree in terms thereof was directed to be passed. One of the properties in the suit consisted of 20 shod of varied sizes and land measuring 7389 sq yds. situated at 438/49A in revenue estate of Jhi...

Rajiv Ranjan Vs. Byford Leasing Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. M/s. Byford Leasing Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, advertised a prize wining-cumpurchase of car on instalments basis scheme. The salient features of the scheme were that the entrant had to deposit the stated amount by 22.12.90. A draw of lots was to be held on 24.12.90 at the time and venue mentioned in the ad. The first prizewinner was to be given the car booked by him free of charge. There were other prizes including six consolation prizes. Those not successful in the draw could get the car on payment of the prevailing price either on cash down basis or on instalments managed through Citi Bank. The contestant could apply for any of the well-known brands, which were available at that time. With regard to the margin money deposited by the entrant the same could be withdrawn only after expiry of three years and was to carry interest @ 7% p.a. from after six months of the date of draw. The case of the complainant, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, was that he ...