Delhi Court September 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 3 of about 72 results (0.021 seconds)D.S. Bist and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR276(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), at the instance of the assessed raises the following question : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of the agreement dated August 20, 1963, entered into with Shri W. L. Kohli, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that while the assessed firm and its partners transferred certain assets to the purchasers for the respective agreed prices on the terms and conditions mentioned there in but the distribution of the total price over the assets was not in accordance with the commercial principles 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and on a true and proper interpretation of the agreement dated August 20, 1963, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in restricting the allowance of loss claimed by the assessed at Rs. 4,27,898 to Rs. 1,50,000 ?' 2. The assessed is a registered firm doing ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Raghumal Ashok Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR466(Delhi)
Chada, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there were two firms in existence one for the period June 23, 1966 to March 31, 1967, and the other for the period April 1, 1967 to June 30, 1967, which required to be separately assessed and that it was not a case of a change in the constitution of the firm governed by the provisions of sections 187 ?' 2. The reference has arisen at the instance of the Departmental and relate to the assessment year 1968-69, accounting period ending on June 30, 1967. M/s. Raghumal Ashok Kumar was being assessed as a registered firm. It derived income from a wholesale business in cotton cloth. The firm was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated April 9, 1962. On March 30, 1967, on of the partners died. O...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ram Dulari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]150ITR569(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. These reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessed, raise a common question for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The question formulated for the opinion of this court is this : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessed in respect of the estate left by her husband, late Shri Om Prakash, was that of an individual and as such one-half income there from was assessable in her hands ?' 2. The assessed, Smt. Ram Dulari, claimed the status of a HUF, but she was assessed as an individual. She is the widow of late Shri Om Prakash, son of late Shri Jwala Prasad. Shri Jwala Prasad died on September 20, 1957, while Shri Om Prakash passed away on June 24, 1960. They were survivor by their widows, namely, Smt. Jhando Devi and Smt. Ram Dulari. In the assessment year under reference, the income that has b...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. National Building Const ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT348
Sultan Singh, J.(1) THIS judgment will dispose of four applications under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39 Rule I and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendant from enforcing the guarantees furnished by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the four Suits No. 211-A, 212-A, 213-A and 214-A of 1982 under Section Bread with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act prays for filing of the arbitration agreement in Court and for appointment of an arbitrator. (2) BRIEFLY the relevant facts are that National Building construction Corporation Limited, New Delhi (defendant) had entered into three contracts with the Public Housing Corporation on 2nd May, 1977, 3rd February, 1979 and 7th April, 1979 for the construction of (i) 1000 houses, (ii) school buildings, and (iii) public utility services in Beniwalid, Libya. On 17th October, 1977 the defendant entered into a sub-contract with plaintiff v. Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited, Trivandrum, a Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Prit Pal Singh Vs. Ranjitrai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT462
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) By this election petition the petitioner. Pritpal Singh, has challenged the election of the returned candidate, Ranjit Rai Sharma, respondent No. 1. Both of them were contesting candidates at the Metropolitan Council election from the Metropolitan Constituency of Paharganj No. 44 held on 5-2-1983. Respondent No. I was declared as a successful candidate. He won by I Ii votes. At the first count he was declared elected by a margin of 113 votes. On a recount the margin was reduced to Iii votes. So the election petitioner is. his closest rival. (2) The petitioner seeks to set aside the election of impendent No. I on four grounds; (1) that respondent No. I indulged in corrupt practice, (2) 336 valid votes of the petitioner were improperly rejected, (3) 85 votes from the ballot boxes of Municipal Corporation election were not counted, and (4) 89 void votes were counted in favor, of respondent No. 1. It is not, necessary to set out the pleadings of the parties at ...
Tag this Judgment!Nuchem Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1888DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal to the Tribunal against the order-in-appeal No.129-CE/DLH/83 dated 23.2.1983 of the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi, in which he has upheld the order-in-original No.20/81 dated 1.7.81 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Faridabad.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants have been manufacturing urea formaldehyde moulding power (UFMP) falling under Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They filed a series of classification lists, namely No. 18/80 effective 27.2.80, 26/80 effective 18.6.80 and 35/80 effective 19.6.80, in respect of UFMP. In each of these classification lists they claimed the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under Notifica- tion No. 7/80, dated 27.2.1980. This notification provided for a concessional rate of duty, namely 33%, in respect of UFMP "manufactured from raw naphtha or any chemical derived therefrom, on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid"....
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Dhawan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi592; [1984]149ITR160(Delhi)
JAIN, J.1. M. R. Dhawan, the petitioner, carried on business as a dealer and broker in shares under the name, M. R. Dhawan & Co., and was a registered member of the Delhi Stock Exchange. He maintained account books on mercantile basis and was assessed to income-tax under the I.T. Act 1961 (for short ' the Act ') as an individual. 2. For the assessment year 1961-62, the petitioner filed a return declaring his income of Rs.1,19,918. A revised return was filed on July 29, 1964, declaring an income of Rs. 1,26,835. A scrutiny of the account books by the ITO concerned revealed three credit balance entries of Rs. 26,21,590, Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 in the current account, loan account No. I and loan account No. II, respectively, of Babar Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana of Nepal with whom the petitioner had dealings in shares and debentures. It was found that the said Rana had died at Bangalore on May 12, 1960, and most of the credit entries in his account were made after his death. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Dev Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi267; 24(1983)DLT374; 1984(6)DRJ81; 1984(1)SLJ693(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a contempt petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police for not sending the petitioner for training for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive).(2) These are the facts. The petitioner is a constable in the Delhi Police. As a departmental candidate he appeared at an examination held by the Staff Selection Commission for the post' of S.I. (Executive). He passed the written test. But he was not allowed to take the personality test because he did not possess the minimum height required under the rules. So he came to this Court in a Writ Petition. I held that the petitioner's disqualification on the ground of minimum height was invalid and that he was entitled to appear at the personality test. So the petitioner appeared at the personality test. He was found fit. He asked for an appointment letter. This was refused to him. The ground for refusal was that he was considered by the Staff Selection Commission as a sch...
Tag this Judgment!Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2380TriDel
1. Since these two appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal and they involve a common point at issue and also relate to the same appellants, this combined order is being issued in respect of both of them.2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants entered into two contracts with their foreign supplier on 20-9-1976 for supply of tungsten ore. One contract No. V. 7321 was for supply of 60 M.T. at the fixed price of U.S. $ 129.50 per M.T. The other contract No. V 7317 was for supply of 150 M.T. at a price to be based on the average of the High London Bulletin Tungsten Ore quotation plus a premium of 0.80 per cent for the contractual month of shipment c.i.f. Madras. The actual price charged under this second contract worked out to U.S. $ 156.24 per M.T. The Deparment was of the view that since both the contracts were entered into on the same date and were between the same buyer and seller and for the same goods, the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 could...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Cotton Spng. and Weag. Mills Vs. Collector of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT786TriDel
1. The facts of this case in brief are that with effect from 18-6-1977, notification No. 132/77-C.E., fully exempted the yarn used by composite textile mills in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. This notification was withdrawn with effect from 15-7-1977. On the midnight of 14/15-7-1977, the appellant had in stock some loose quantity of cotton yarn as well as some cotton yarn contained in cotton fabrics in stock.The Department sought to collect duty on these two types of pre-duty stock of yarn in terms of Proviso to notification No. 226/77-C.E., dated 15-7- 1977. This Proviso gave the rate of duty for fabrics in two parts cotton fabric duty plus the yarn duty. The appellants have challenged this saying that the Proviso sought to give retrospective effect to yarn duty which had earlier been exempted by notification No.132/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977.2. The appellants stated during the hearing that they had two High Court judg- ments in their favour :- (1) 1981 (8) E.L.T. 274 (Gujarat) - A...
Tag this Judgment!