Delhi Court March 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 2 of about 76 results (0.024 seconds)J.J. Foams (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)5ITD416(Delhi)
1. The assessee J.J. Foams (P.) Ltd., filed a reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on 14-9-1982 and by this application, the Tribunal was required to refer one question of law which was stated to arise out of the order of the Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 2019 (Delhi) of 1981, relating to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee has filed a statement of facts also as required under the rules. The question of law required to be referred was as under : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not directing the ITO to recast the development rebate already computed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated 19-9-1979 and to carry the same forward to subsequent years for actual deduction against profits of such subsequent year? The statement of the case also referred to the relevant facts relating to the above question.2. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Dautatram Khanchand Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR270
Avadh Behari, J. (1) The petitioner firm M/s. Daulat Ram Khan Chand applied for renewal of its license on 26.7.82 under the Delhi Where it (Licensing & Control) Order 1975 (the licensing order). This application for renewal was refused by the Deputy Commissioner, Food & Supplies Department, Delhi Administration, on 28.8.82. An appeal from his order was dismissed on 15.10.82 by the Commissioner, Food and Supplies. The appellate order was affirmed inrevisiononl5.12.82by the Lt. Governor. The firm has brought this writ petition against the refusal to renew the license and other reliefs. (2) The firm has made an application for an interim relief that the respondents be directed to renew its license till the decision of the petition, (3) The dates are important in this case. The petitioner firm was granted a license under the licensing Order which expired on 25.2.81. Under the licensing Order the firm should have applied for renewal of license at least one month in advance, that is, on 25.2...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh and anr. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT478
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Man Singh son of Yad Ram, resident of house No 2117, Gali Ravidas, Teliwara and Trilok Chand, a resident of village and Post Office Rajpura, District Dehra Dun were tried in the court of Shri G.S. Dakha, Additional Sessions Judge, on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge found both the accused guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. Against their conviction and sentence they have come in appeal. (2) The deceased Asha Ghand and Public Witness . 1 Narender Singh resided in the same building at Sish Mahal. According to Public Witness . 1 on 7th October 1978 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. Asha Chand came to his house and they had tea. Thereafter, both the deceased and Public Witness . 1 left for Mahabir Bazar to attend a Jagran. Public Witness .1 and the deceased after passing in front of the house of Man Singh accused (situated in Gali Ravi Dass) had reached the corne...
Tag this Judgment!Baker Mercer (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)CENCUS1035D
1. The matter in controversy in this appeal is as to whether the goods imported by the appellants described as Honing Stones were liable to Customs duty under Item 68.01/16(1) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The petitioners had imported a consignment of the aforesaid goods by Bill of Entry dated 8-8-1979 and on assessment being made for purpose of excise duty, under Tariff Entry 68.01/16(1), the duty was paid but subsequently the party filed a refund claim contending that the goods were classifiable under Sub-clause (2) of this Entry and not Sub-clause (1), as determined by the Customs Authorities.2. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay rejected this contention holding that Tariff Entry 68.01/16(2) of the Customs Tariff excluded from within its scope, articles known as Honing Stones and that accordingly, the goods were correctly classified under Sub-clause (1) of the same Entry, which dealt with generally all varieties of articles of natural or artificial stones of given ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Neelam theatre
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)4ITD562(Delhi)
1. Both the revenue and the assessee are in appeal against the order of AAC, for the assessment year 1968-69. The revenue has raised only one issue which is about a sum of Rs. 82,500 paid by the assessee during the year in question. The assessee claimed that he had made a payment of Rs. 1,10,000 under the lease agreement for acquiring the property of Jai Hind Cinema comprising of land, building, machinery and furniture.He had to make the payment of one-fourth of this sum, i.e., Rs. 27,500, at the time of bidding in the auction held in July 1965. The ITO did not accept the claim of the assessee for allowing a deduction of Rs. 1,10,000 as the revenue payment made for carrying out the business by the assessee. . According to the assessee, the payment was made in the course of carrying out the business and being inextricably linked with the process of earning income should be considered as an outgoing of business. The ITO did not accept this claim. In his view, the payment was made as pre...
Tag this Judgment!Tharia Ram Vs. Chitra Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi181; 23(1983)DLT393; 1984(6)DRJ181; 1983RLR482
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Section 25B as introduced in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, provides special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. On an application being moved by a landlord under these provisions summons have to go in a specified form to the tenant. On service being completed as provided for, the tenant cannot contest the prayer for eviction from the demise unless he files an affidavit within fifteen days, staling the grounds on which he seeks to contest the eviction and obtains leave from the Rent Controller. In default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the eviction petition has to be deemed as admitted by the tenant and an eviction order passed. However if the tenant's affidavit discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining eviction the Controller has to allow leave to contest to the tenant.(2) These provisions are subs...
Tag this Judgment!Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1038DTri(Delhi)
1. This revision by M/s. Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed before the Central Government under the provisions of Section 131 of Customs Act, 1962, has been received by transfer, to be disposed of an appeal by the Tribunal by virtue of provisions of Section 131B(2) of the said Act and the same is being disposed of as such.2. The company, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, had imported 6 consignments of what is described as "woollen rags" by means of different Bills of Entry which were presented to the Import Department of the Customs at Bombay on different dates falling between 1-3-1979 and 9-3-1979. The goods were treated to be falling under Tariff Entry 63.02 of the Customs Tariff for the purpose of customs duty. So far as charge of countervailing duty was concerned, the same was realised with reference to Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. After the goods were cleared on payment of duty as assessed and demanded, refund claims were filed by the party for all the si...
Tag this Judgment!Khandelwal Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1258TriDel
1. In this Revision Petition to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an appeal pursuant to Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, the material facts are - (a) the business premises of the Appellant were searched on 24-7-75 and rough emeralds alleged to be of foreign origin were recovered ; (c) the seized rough emeralds were found to weigh 33.593 Kgs. and in the opinion of the Jewellery Appraiser, the value thereof was Rs. 35,950/-. The Jewellery Appraiser also opined that they were of Brazilian origin.2. In the proceedings that followed pursuant to the seizure and the statement of Appellant, it would appear that the Appellant was insisting upon being permitted to cross-examine the panch witnesses as well as the Jewellery Appraiser. They were, however, not offered for cross-examination, notwithstanding that it is their evidence, that is substantially relied upon by the Revenue, to prove the contravention of the prohibition and restrictions imposed under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!New Era Hindustan Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1049DTri(Delhi)
2. The short point falling for determination in this case is whether Central Excise duty was leviable at the material time on blended yarn having an admixture of wool and staple fibre of non-cellulosic origin or staple fibre of collulosic origin, the wool content being less than 40%.3. The appellants are manufacturers of blended yarn spun with admixture of wool and staple fibre of cellulosic origin or non-cellulosic origin.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana held that such yarn manufactured by the appellants fell for classification under Item No.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET for short) relating to "Rayon and synthetic fibres and yarn" at Rs. 14/- per Kg. (in the case of admixture of wool and staple fibre of non-cellulosic origin) and Rs. 6/- (in the case of admixture of wool and staple fibre of cellulosic origin) and not at Rs. 0.80 Paise per Kg. as woollen yarn (others) under Item 18-B of the CET relating to woollen yarn. On this basis, he demanded dif...
Tag this Judgment!Peanut Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC666DTri(Delhi)
1. A notice dated 1st of Feb., 1983 fixing hearing on 25th of February, 1983 was served on the appellant. However, when the case was taken up on that day a letter dated 21st February, 1983 which had been received in the registry on 24th February, was placed before us. In the letter adjournment was sought for 15 to 20 days on the ground of illness of one Director. We adjourned the hearing to 24th March, 1983 and announced the date in the open court.2. Today on the case being called on for hearing, we find no arrangements for representation from the appellant. Shri K.V.Unnikrishnan for the Revenue is present. We have repeatedly observed and have held that it is for the parties to inform themselves as to the outcome of their requests made, particularly when these are postal or telegraphic ones and it cannot or should not be expected of the Tribunal to inform as to whether requests are accepted or rejected.3. In the present case when adjournment was requested for 15 to 20 days and which w...
Tag this Judgment!