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.
Lakshmi Devi and ors. Vs. Mamleshwar Pershad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT26
Aggarwal, J. (1) Shri Mamleshwar Prasad, the respondent herein, filed a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the tenant Jagat Narain from premises described as 3173, Phatak NanakChand, Mohalla Dassan, Delhi, inter-alia, on the grounds (a) that the tenant has not paid the rent from 1-7-1967; (b) has sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of the tenanted premises without the consent in writing of the landlord to Partap Narain Seth, Kailash Narain Seth, sons of Laxmi Narain Seth and Sat Narain Seth, Deep Narain Seth and Raghubir Narain Seth sons of Jai Narain Seth, respondents 2 to 6 to the petition; (e) that the demised premises are required bonafide by the landlord for his own occupation; and (d) that the tenant Jagat Narain had built his own house at Q-7 Model Town, Delhi and he had already shifted to the said house. (2) The petition was contested by all the respondents. The respondent No. I denied to have sub-let or parted with possession of the demised p...
K.B. Foams Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT476TriDel
1. This is a revision petition filed before the Government of India which, on transfer, is being treated as an appeal. The Appellate Collector, Madras, in his order dated 19-12-1980, confirmed the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore dated 14-7-1980.2. The Appellants claimed refund of Rs. 29,608.34 being the excess duty paid by them on the clearance in excess of the base clearance for the year 1976-77 and 1977-78. The claim for refund for the period 20-9-1977 to 29-11- 1977 amounting to Rs. 5,555.12 was held by the Assistant Collector to be barred by time since the claim was made on 4-5-1978.The Appellate Collector felt that the six months' period should be reckoned with reference to the date of payment of duty and not with reference to the date of communication of the approval of the base clearance by the concerned Assistant Collector.3. Mr. Daya Sagar appearing for the appellants submitted that the normal duty payable could be known only when the quantity o...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Gurbhachan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Del)223; [1985]156ITR74(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. The question raised in this income-tax reference is one that has arisen on several occasions earlier. The provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as they original stood, fixed the minimum penalty at 20 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded, but by an amendment in 1968, the minimum penalty, was changed to 100 per cent of the concealed income. In several cases, a return of income has been filed which has not revealed the entire taxable income. These returns have been filed before the amendment of 1968. However, in some cases a revised return and in some cases a return consequent to reopening of the assessment under ss. 147 and 148 of the Act has been filed after the amendment became operative. In these cases a question has arisen as to whether the penalty should be imposed on the basis of the first return or on the basis of the second return. Some judgments have taken the view that it is the last return which has to be seen because the concealment is also present...
D.L.F. United Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Del)126; [1986]158ITR342(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. For the assessment year 1964-65, a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been made to us on the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs. 2,55,571 received by the assessed company on acquisition of its lands by the Government is assessable to tax as the profits of the assessed's business 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, said compensation was the agricultural income of the assessed within meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, as such, is exempt from income-tax 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lands, which were the stock-in-trade of the assessed, stood sterilized a converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from one-half of the property situat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. S.B. Harnam Singh and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR324(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J.1. For the assessment year 1969-70, the following question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the tenancy rights did not belong to the assessed-firm and any surplus realised by the transfer thereof, could not be included in its assessment ?' 2. The history of the case as set out in the statement of the case can now be shortly referred to. The assessed is a registered firm carrying on business in paints and varnishes. It has three partners - Shri Mohan Singh, Shri Dalip Singh and Shri Gian Singh, sons of the late Shri Harnam Singh. For the assessment year 1969-70, the firm was assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,77,043 which included a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 received on the transfer of the tenancy relation to 303 and 304, Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, in which the firm's business was being carried o...
Tuisi Devi and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi353; 27(1985)DLT408; 1985(8)DRJ210
ORDERI Rule 10 can be invoked not only by the parties to the suit but by the court suo moto. But the court can act only when some circumstances are brought to its notice by some party to show that it is necessary to implead some other party also'.I respectfully agree with the observations that the court can implead a third parly if it is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved. (8) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further refers to Satish Chand Gupta v. Sarvesh Chand Gupta and others, 1984 (26) Dlt 186 where it has been observed as follows : 'AFTER considering these cases, it appears to me that it will depend upon the facts of each case whether a person is a proper party or a necessary party so that he may be allowed to be added as a party'.(9) I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and thereforee the trial...
Praveen Motor Stores Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: 1985RLR68
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The present Writ petition involves a very short point which has already been decided by several judgments of this Court, which are all unreported. The petition refers to some of these decided cases. We had accordingly issued Rule D.B., and heard arguments on the question involved. (2) The question involved in this case is that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The Director General of Supplies and Disposals, respondent No. 2, sells Army disposal goods by way of inviting tenders. The petitioner was successful in purchasing certain electrical goods of a value of Rs. 5,77,786.00. According to letter accepting the tender, which is a sale letter dated 30-6-84 the petitioner was to pay Delhi Sales Tax as extra and it is this action which is challenged in the petition. This sales-tax is chargeable at 10%. (3) As the petitioner is a registered dealer, it is claimed that be has not to pay the sales-tax. The petitioner has tendered the ST...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT69TriDel
1. These are 44 appeals of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, arising out of the combined Order-in-Appeal No. 999 to 1044/CH/83 dated 30-11-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Each order in the combined Order-in-Appeal arises out of a consignment of the imported goods covered by an ex-bond bill of entry.25 of the appeals relate to bills of entry of Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., 17 to bills of entry of Messrs Punjab Processors Ltd., and two to bills of entry of Messrs Gandharav Trading & Investment Co. Pvt.Ltd. 3. Although the Collector's Order was a combined one, it does not contain a complete list of the appeals covered by it, with reference to the bill of entry and other particulars. Separate lists are annexed to the copies endorsed to each of the three respondents. The list of appeals of Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills relates to 25 consignments, that of Messrs Punjab Processors to 18 consignments and that of Messrs Gandharav Trading & In...
Kusum Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC673Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal dated 17.12.1981 was filed by M/s. Kusum Products against the order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs No. 547-B of 1981, dated nil. The dispute arose from an adjudication of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, West Bengal, Calcutta No.I/Goods N.E.S./1981 dated 30.5.1981.2. By this order of 30.5.1981, the Collector held that acid oil was a new product, different from the Vegetable Non-Essential Oils the original raw material, and was classifiable under item 68 of the CET.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants, M/s. Kusum Products disputed this claim. He said that acid oil was a VNE oil, and cannot be assessed under item 68. The treatment with sulphuric acid does not produce a new product the oil which is classed acid oil was already in the oil which was treated to obtain the soap stock from which the acid oil is prepared.4. The learned Counsel for the department refuted this argument by pointing to the adjudication of the Collector, who said that t...
Collector of Customs Vs. Law Publishers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT374TriDel
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Government of India which, on transfer, is being treated as an appeal. The revision was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 14-1-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay allowed the appeal and the department have filed this revision application.2. The Respondents, M/s. Law Publishers, Allahabad imported 17 Cartons of Thermographic Printing Powder under Bill of Entry No. 2113/446, dated 3-1-1978. They sought clearance of goods under Heading 32.13 of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at 60% plus 15% without levy of any additional duty under Section 3 of the Act. The department assessed the goods under Heading 32.04/12(1) of the Schedule at 100% plus 20% with additional duty at 5% and Special Excise duty at 5% of Basic Excise Duty under Item 14I(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Section 3 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The importers...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »