Delhi Court November 1984 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.
Rainbow Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1545Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.important events in this case, as seen from the27-11-75 The appellants filed a price-list in Part IV proforma as applicable for sales to related persons, of the dyestuffs manufactured by them. The price-list showed various includible and excludible expenses as well as the assessable value as claimed by the appellants.6-12-75 The price-list was approved, accepting the assessable values as declared by the appellants. The approval was to be effective from 1-10-75.9-8-76 The Assistant Collector addressed a letter to the appellants stating that the method adopted in arriving at the assessable value was not correct. It set out what according to the Assistant Collector was the correct method. It also showed the net accord...
Chhotey Lal Bharany Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: [1986]161ITR552(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner herein, Shri Chhotey Lal Bharany, has challenged the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, on June 20, 1970, whereby the application moved on behalf of the petitioner for waiving the penalty under section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rejected.2. The impugned order deals with two applications filed by the petitioner seeking waiving of the penalty imposable for furnishing late returns for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. 3. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order regarding the return filed on April 8, 1967, for the assessment year 1964-65. It is admitted by the petitioner that the return was filed late and as such penalty was livable under section 271(1)(a) of the Act for the said assessment year. However, the case of the petitioner is that he had filed the return prior to the issue of notice to him under sub-section (2) of of section 139 of the Act. The return filed was not only vo...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Bharat Ram Charat Ram P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Del)5; [1986]157ITR199(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. There are 11 Income-tax References before this court relating to four assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71. Some of the applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and some at the instance of the assessed. Out of the seven questions referred to us, questions Nos. 1 to 4 are at the instance of the Department and questions Nos. 5 to 7 are at the instance of the assessed. The questions are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the annual premium paid by the assessed-company on the accident insurance of its directors was not their perquisite within the meaning of the term used in section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to deduction under section 35(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of rent paid by it on behalf of M/s....
Survir Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-i, Ne ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1984
Reported in: [1981]157ITR206(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. These four writ petitions (Nos. 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1934 of 1984) are concerned with the seizure and retention of certain books of account, documents, fixed deposit receipts, etc., which were detained by the Income-tax Department as a result of a search under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The search was conducted in Delhi and Chandigarh as per the facts stated in the writ petitions. It was also claimed that certain other assets not belonging to the petitioner were also seized, but nothing much turns on that, as far as this petition is concerned. The search took place on May 14, 1981, and hence the books of account and other assets could be retained for 180 days under section 132 of the Act. After that, the period of retention could be extended with the approval of the Commissioner under the provisions of section 132(8) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, they had been asking for the return of the seized assets because 180 days had passed, but the...
Survir Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-i, Ne ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1984
Reported in: (1986)46CTR(Del)4; [1986]157ITR206(Delhi)
D. K. KAPUR J. - These four writ petitions (Nos. 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1934 of 1984) are concerned with the seizure and retention of certain books of account, documents, fixed deposit receipts, etc., which were detained by the Income-tax Department as a result of a search under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The search was conducted in Delhi and Chandigarh as per the facts stated in the writ petitions. It was also claimed that certain other assets not belonging to the petitioner were also seized, but nothing much turns on that, as far as this petition is concerned. The search took place on May 14, 1981, and hence the books of account and other assets could be retained for 180 days under section 132 of the Act. After that, the period of retention could be extended with the approval of the Commissioner under the provisions of section 132(8) of the Act.According to the petitioner, they had been asking for the return of the seized assets because 180 days had passed, but the sam...
East India Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT344TriDel
1. This is an appeal by M/s East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Madras, against the order in appeal No. 1444/80 dated 30.5.1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras. The appellants manufacture a product that they call two sides paper lined hessian (bitumenised). This product is obtained by hessian being bonded on both sides with layers of paper, using bitumen as the bonder. The Assistant Collector said that the product should be classified under Item 17(2) of CET at 30% duty for the period 27-5-1976 to 4-4-1978 and proceeded to demand differential duty of Rs. 29,707.84.2. The Appellate Collector in his order dated 30th May, 1980 said that the demand should be restricted in period to one year prior to 6-8-1977, and to six months for the period after 6-8-1977. He also decided that the product would fall under Item 17(2) CET and that Item 22A and Item 68 were not appropriate for it. He further ruled that notification No. 184/76 which the factory...
Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT296TriDel
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer the matter is being treated as an appeal and disposed of accordingly.2. The issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the handling charges' charged by the appellants in respect of consignments of property rods made by them on behalf of the various customers formed part of the value of the goods for assessment purposes.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants during the relevant period (9-11-1972 to 31-7-1975) were manufacturing Aluminium wire rods. They got duty paid EC grade Aluminium ingots from the producing factories on account of various customers for manufacture of wire rods on job basis. In some cases for delivery of such rods to customers, the appellants charged what has been described as delivery and handling charges. The lower authorities observed that the appellants were paying duty on such rods with reference to the prices fixed under the Aluminium (Contr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.K. Silk and Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Del)314; [1986]158ITR462(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act are not very complicated. The assessed is a private limited company which was manufacturing wool tops which were converted into woollen yarn by some outside spinners. During the accounting period 1964-65 relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessed itself started manufacturing yarn from the wool tops. The facts noticed by the Tribunal are that in the year 1964-65, approximately Rs. 3 lakhs worth of machinery was purchased and in subsequent periods, additions were made and some machinery was also discarded. In the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, machinery worth about Rs. 8 lakhs had been installed in connection with the spinning unit. The question which arose before the income-tax authority was whether relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act had to be allowed to the assessed. 2. The Income-tax Officer at various stages disallowed relief, but in t...
S.D. Sharma Vs. Trade Fair Authority of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi430
Sachar, J. 1. This writ petition was heard together with others and they will be disposed of by these common judgment as the counsel agreed that the decision in this writ petition will govern the decision in other petitions. 2. This writ petition challenges the order of removal of 7th April, 1981 as upheld in appeal by the order the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 Trade Fair Authority as per his order dated 15th July, 1981 by which the petitioner has been removed from service. The charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 17th February, 1981 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 27 of the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be known as 'Conduct Rules'). The charge reads as under : 'That a demonstration was held on 3rd February, 1981 by some of the Employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India in office premises in which inflammatory speeches were made and defamatory slogans were shouted. Chairman ...
Jagbir Singh Vs. L.D. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT143
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing and setting aside the orders dated May 2, 1984 and May 16, 1984 passed by the Competent Authority (Election).(2) The elections to the Gaon Sabha Nanalcheri were held on December 25,1983. The elections were conducted under the provisions of the Delhi Gram Panchayat Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Gram Pacchayat Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Shri J.N. Malhotra was the Returning Officer for Circle 14 (Chhawla) of which Gaon Sabha Nanakheri forms a part. Shri J.P. Sharma, respondent No.6 was appointed as the Presiding Officer for conducting the elections and counting the votes. After the polling had taken place, the ballot boxes were opened by the Presiding Officer, respondent No. 6, in the presence of the contesting candidates or their agents. As a result of the counting, the petitioner secured 133 valid votes and respondent No. 3 secured 132 valid v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »