Delhi Court October 1983 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sunder Lal Banwari Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Del)112; [1985]156ITR617(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. The question of law posed for the opinion of the court, in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Department is this : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant-firm was entitled to continuance of registration under section 184(7) of the Act ?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1966-67 and the accounting period ended on June 30, 1965. A firm under the name and style of Sunder Lal Banwari Lal was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated July 10, 1959 w.e.f. February 8, 1959. In the relevant assessment year, i.e., at the beginning of the accounting period, there were four partners, namely, Mukat Behari Lal, Amba Prasad, Suraj Bhan and Om Parkash. Initially, there was another partner named Sunder Lal but he died on April 29, 1959, and on his death, Mukat Behari Lal was taken as a partner with the consent of the other p...
Dwarka Singh Cahuhan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT289
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, upholding that of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, ordering the sealing of a premises u/s 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, exposes yet another instance of resort to the criminal process by intending buyers of immovable property to dispossess long standing occupation, by passing the rather dilatory civil remedies. (2) Premises bearing No. A-41, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Delhi apparently belonged to and was in the occupation of the Prafull Kumar Sanyal. Sanyal died in May, 1966. Dwarka Singh Chanhan, the petitioner, had been living in a part of the property, either as a tenant under Sanyal or otherwise under some arrangement with him during his life time. Petitioner continued to be in occupation, either of a part or of the whole of the premises, since the death of Sanyal and there is controversy as to the extent of the area ...
Elmo Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT431TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated nil (received in the Department of Revenue on 12-5-82) against order in appeal No. 8/82 (Md.) dt. 21-1-82 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Electric Motors as well as Stators and Rotors, both falling under Item 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the years 1978-79 and 79-80, stators and rotors to the value of Rs. 1,68,276 and Rs. 1.65,219 respectively had been clearned but were not included in the value computed for purposes of availing of exemption under Notification No. 71/78 in respect of electric motors all sorts and parts thereof. Since electric motors to the value of Rs. 3,99,700 and Rs. 3,99,750 were cleared respectively during 78-79 and 79-80, the total value of goods cleared would work out to Rs. 5,67,975 and 5,64,969 respectively and would exc...
Peico Electronics and Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2512TriDel
1. This is an appeal from Messrs Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellants) against the Order-in-Revision dated 24-8-82 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune.The matter arises from the Order No. V (Ex) 11-39/77/69 dated the 31st December, 1980, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune II Division. It relates to a material called "spider cloth". The appellants had been served with notice to show cause why this spider cloth should not be assessed to duty under sub-item III of Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The description of this sub-item reads as follows:- "Cotton fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials." After considering the reply given by the appellants, the Assistant Collector in his order under reference observed that the spider cloth was obtained at an intermediate stage and was not marketable nor marketed a...
C.R.E. Wood Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sardar Iqbal Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas978(Delhi); 25(1984)DLT391
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This is a complaint under Section 455(5) of the Companies Act 1956 by the Official Liquidator representing the C.R.E. Wood Co. Pvt. Ltd. now in liquidation, against Iqbal Singh and Ranjit Singh. The allegations are that these persons being the directors of the said company did not file the statement of affairs and thereforee have committed offence under Section 454(5) of the Act. (2) C.R.E. Wood Co. Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up on 6-4-1977 on a petition moved by the Dena Bank Ltd., claiming to be the creditor. Under Section 454(3) of the Companies Act, its statement of affairs should have been submitted within 21 days of the making of the winding up order by one or more of the persons who were at that time the directors, manager, secretary or chief officer of the company. That period of 21 days could be extended to a maximum period of three months on the ground of special reasons. No statement of affairs however was filed within the period prescribed nor any ...
Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1983
Reported in: (1985)LC625Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Andhra Cotton Mills filed a revision petition before the Central Government, feeling aggrieved by an order dated 21-11-1980, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay whereby he confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector dated 19-5-1980, rejecting the refund claim of the petitioners therein. This revision petition has since been received by transfer to the Tribunal, by virtue of the provisions of Section 131B (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. It has accordingly been taken up as such.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy, as can be gathered from the two orders of the lower authorities as well as the grounds of revision petition (now an appeal) are to the effect that the appellants imported a consignment of viscose staple, fibre from Canada, by vessel, 'S. S. Mishref. The contention is that this ship had entered the territorial waters of India on 2-12-1978. ...
Arti Paints and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT206TriDel
1. This appeal dated 30th April, 1983 has been filed on behalf of Arti Paints and Chemicals Industries, Bombay against Order-in-Appeal No.A-160/B-II-35/83 dated 12th February, 1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The subject is a demand for Rs. 367,265.50 on the ground that toluene falling under tariff item No. 6 and obtained by Arti Paints and Chemicals at the concessional rate of the duty under notification No. 35/73-CE was not used for the intended purpose as laid down in the notification. The Appeallate Collector in his order dated 12th February 1983 concluded thus: We have seen the concession was available only if the toluene was used in the manufacture of thinners used for paints etc. The appellants have not satisfied that the thinner manufactured from the toluene was so used.Accordingly, demand of duty is justifiable." 2. We can see from this that the Appellate Collector held that the toluene, if it was to be given exemption under notification No.35...
income-tax Officer Vs. Hydle Constructions (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD575(Delhi)
1. Of the above five appeals, there is one asssesee's appeal relating to the assessment year 1976-77 whereas there are two cross-appeals by the department and the assessee relating to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The main points involved in these appeals are common and they relate to the assessee's claim for being treated as an industrial company as defined in Section 2(9)(c) of the Finance Act, 1976 (similar in other years Finance Acts) and the claim of the assessee for relief under Section 80J of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). While in the assessment year 1976-77 both the points were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee, in later assessment years, namely, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the assessee was not an industrial company for the purposes of concession in the rate of tax under the Finance Act.However, the assessee's claim for being treated as an industrial undertaking under Sections 80J and 80HH of t...
Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2509TriDel
1. The question that falls for decision in this case is whether item 46 of the Central Excise Tariff relating to metal containers, as introduced by the Finance Bill, 1970, included flattened or folded containers.2. The case has an interesting history. Soon after the introduction of tariff item 46, some doubt was felt whether flattened or folded containers were covered within its scope. The appellants paid duty on two consignments of such containers cleared on 10-3-1970. On 21-4-1970, Central Excise Officer informed them by a letter that since flattened cans were treated non-excisable at that time, the payment of duty by the appellants was not in order and that they should, therefore, apply for refund of the same. Then came notification No. 96/70-C.E., dated 1-5-1970 which fully exempted metal containers re-formed out of duty-paid flattened containers or folded containers. This seems to have set the central excise authorities to reconsider their earlier view. On 18-12-1970, they collec...
Indian Institute of Public Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD367(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal is Indian Institute of Public Opinion (P.) Ltd., New Delhi, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.The year of assessment involved is 1970-71 for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1969. The assessee-company derived income from publication of magazines, survey and research services.2. Admittedly, in the year under consideration, the assessee inter alia received fees totalling Rs. 38,140 from British Broadcasting Corporation, London (Rs. 29,700) and Roper Public Opinion Research Centre, Williamstown. Massachusetts (USA) (Rs. 8,440). The stand of the assessee before the ITO was that in respect of the said receipts it was entitled to the deduction under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). This was not acceptable to the ITO as the above foreign enterprises from whom the technical services fees were received, were not according to the ITO, 'foreign companies'.3. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee brought the matter b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »