Delhi Court February 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.
Namdang Tea Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT394TriDel
1. As a common point at issue is involved in these two appeals and they were argued together by the same advocates, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appellant No. 1 owned two tea factories and appellant No. 2 owned three tea factories. Both the appellants were entitled to the concessional rate of duty on excess clearances of tea in terms of exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-76, commonly known as the incentive rebate scheme for higher production. Their base year as well as base year clearances had been duly approved by the Assistant Collector. During October, 1978, the two appellants expected to cross the base year figure. They informed the Department of this and after taking the approval of the Central Excise authorities, they started availing of the concessional rate for their clearances of tea in excess of their approved base year figures. Eight to nine months later, the authorities informed them that individual tea factories of the manufacturer, a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Om Prakash Mahajan and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR583(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. For the assessment year 1967-68, the following two questions have been referred to us : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment of the sum of Rs. 10,000 in the hands of the assessed as the assessed's income from undisclosed sources is not correct following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rattan Lal v. Income-tax Officer : [1975]98ITR681(Delhi) (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the aforesaid amount cannot be brought to tax in the assessment year 1967-68 in spite of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The answer to the first question has to be in favor of the Department because of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT : [1981]130ITR244(SC) , wherein the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported as Rattan Lal v. ITO : [1975]98ITR681(Delhi) was overruled. 3. The second question presents some problem. In this case...
Parkash Chand JaIn Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Shri Ram (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT444; 1984(6)DRJ301
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal by the heirs and legal representatives of Parkash Chand Jain, tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'The Act') challenges the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1983 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 10th May. 1982 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction in favor of M/s. Madan Mohan Lal Shri Ram Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) against the appellants and Shri Naresh Chander Jain, (Respondent No. 2) on the grounds covered by Clauses (b), (d) & (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Naresh Chander Jain (Respondent No. 2) has also filed another appeal (S.A.O. No. 361 of 1983) challenging the order of eviction against him. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals. (2) Briefly the facts are that on 12th October, 1976 the Respondent No. I filed a petition for eviction against Parkash Chand Jain, predecessor of the appellants and Respondent No. 2 alle...
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT378TriDel
1. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., the appellants, have their factory at Yamunanagar. On 19-7-74, the Superintendent, Central Excise, SRP Range, Yamunanagar, in his C. No. C.E.-20/Paper/219/74/3041 issued a show cause notice to the appellants demanding a differential duty amounting to Rs. 4,13,564.26 p. pertaining to be the alleged short levy of excise duty relating to the period 1-4-72 to 10-4-72. The notice was issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the concessional rate notified under Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Notification No. 208/67-C.E. dated 8-9-67 was not admissible to the appellants as the concession accorded in the Notification was admissible only to such paper mills as did not have a plant attached thereto for making bamboo pulp. The appellants sent a reply alleging that the show cause notice was time barred. They also urged that the classification lists had been approved by the departmental authorities and, at any rate, th...
RexIn Sea (India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT209TriDel
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.2. The appeal arises out of the appellants' claim for refund of special excise duty amounting to Rs. 19,504.92 paid by them on coated cotton fabrics during the period 12-3-80 to 31-3-80. It was their contention that during the above period the goods were exempt from special excise duty in terms of Notification No. 12/80 dated 12-3-80. On their claim being rejected by the Assistant Collector, they filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector which was also rejected. The matter has now come before us.3. Appearing before us for the appellants, Dr. Gauri Shankar stated that he was not pressing the claim on the ground advanced before the authorities below. He however wished to press the claim on the basis of a new ground,...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Rattan Chand Kapoo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Del)283; [1984]149ITR1(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. The question referred to us for the assessment year 1964-65 is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the principles of law and accountancy, the amount of Rs. 38,139 representing sales tax liabilities could be allowed as deductible expenses in the computation of income, profits and gains for the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 ?' 2. The question has arisen in somewhat unusual circumstances. The assessed is an individual dealing in knitting wool : formerly he was a partner in a firm known as Gokal Chand Rattan Chand, but even as an individual he was carrying on business under the same name. The firm was dissolved on March 31, 1956, and then the assessed took over all assets and liabilities as shown by a dissolution deed dated June 8, 1956. The firm during its existence incurred sales tax liability amounting to Rs. 10,670 for the period April 1, 1953, to March 31, 1956. There was subs...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Development (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)79; [1986]158ITR159(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 and 1966-67 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to the benefits of s. 47(iii) of the IT Act, 1961?' Although, the question raised is a very substantial one, we feel that it is not really necessary to answer this question in this particular case because of some other events which have occurred after the case was decided by the Tribunal. 2. The facts are that the assessed is a Private Limited Company which under the relevant period was under the control of the late Shri R. Dalmia. Certain shares which were held by the company were transferred to various persons. These shares included 3,600 shares of Patiala Biscuits ., and 4,500 shares of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. The shares in question were not normally quoted or dealt with in the stock market. According to the ITO, the intrinsic value of the shares was much higher than...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Rajinder Kumar Rajgarhia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Del)296; [1985]156ITR556(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The assessed in the present case is a partner in the firm, M/s. Industrial Textile Products, Delhi, which provided him with rent-free accommodation. The question was whether this was to be treated as a perquisite in the hands of the assessed. For the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71, the following question has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions contained in section 28(iv) and section 67 of the Income-tax Act, the rent and electricity charges paid by the firm in respect of the portion of the premises occupied by the assessed-partner as residence is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessed as a perquisite ?' 2. It may be mentioned, that the rent as paid for the accommodation by the firm was Rs. 11,400 in 1967-68 and 1968-69, Rs. 16,850 in 1969-70 and Rs. 18,000 in 1970-71. In addition, electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1,200 were paid by the firm in each of the years. The In...
Ganga Ram and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes155; 1984(7)DRJ46
Aggarwal, J. (1) Ganga Ram, his brother Shish Ram, Rohtas and Om Parkash, sons of Shish Ram, Ram Phal and his brothers Sri Krishan, Silak Ram and Rain Krishan, sons of Chandgi Ram were sent up for trial on charges under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) There was a cross case under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Risal son of Balu, Ram Niwas and his brother Mohinder Singh, sons of Hazari deceased.(3) S.M. Agg&rwal;, Additional Sections Judge, who tried both the aforesaid cases by a common judgment dated 27th July 1981 found Ganga Ram Shish Ram Om Parkash, Ram Phal, Sri Kishan and Ram of the Kishan guilty of the offences charged with and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first charge, to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second charge and to rigorous imprisonment fo...
Jawahar Lal and anr. Vs. Bharat Tobacco Manufacturing Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT459
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) Temporary injunctions have been issued against the appellants in Suit No. 964/83, pending on the Original Side of this Court. The Suit in question can be described as a passing-off action based on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark and the use of certain labels by the defendants. The appeal was admitted by us on 21st September, 1983, and stay of the injunctions in question was also granted. At the hearing of the stay matter after notice, we came to the conclusion that the interim order and the final order bad to be the same) so we directed the appeal itself to be heard. (2) We have now heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter is a comparatively small one. The plaintiffs and the second defendant were carrying on business in the name and style of M/S. Chanan Dass Gobind Lal/Bharat Tobacco Manufacturing Company, Weavers Colony, Panipat. One of the products being manufactured in partnership was Bharat Scented Khaini, which we are told is a co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »