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.
P.C. Puri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi134; [1985]151ITR584(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. These eight references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), four at the instance of the assessed and four at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, raised two common questions of law for the opinion of the court. The questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax should have directed the Income-tax Officer to modify the original assessment order by including any interest under section 215 that the might consider chargeable after duly considering the provisions of that section and of rule 40(1) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax was entitled to pass an order under section 263 to revise the assessment order, to direct the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings for the imposition of penalty under section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessed in th...
Vinolia Ice and Allied Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT214TriDel
1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal of Appellate Collector, Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi under No. 2786-C. No. 76-C.E./76 dated 23-12-1976. The appellant has fabricated storage tank of 10' x 44' x4' with a special design at their factory site. According to the appellant this storage tank was not meant for sale and was intended for storing and cooling candies. This storage tank is also meant for keeping aerated and water bottles and it has an inbuilt compressor and condenser. The Assistant Collector held that this item would be a 'Cabinet' not exempted under Notification No. 80/62-C.E., dated 24-4-1962, as amended. He imposed penalty of Rs. 100 and directed levy of duty assessed on the value of the item at Rs. 3000. He also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 100. On appeal, the Appellate Collector confirmed the redemption fine of Rs.100 but waived the penalty of Rs. 100. When the appeal was taken up today, none represented the appellant. Mr. S. N. Khanna, JDR represente...
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT579TriDel
1. This combined order relates to the 15 appeals listed in the Annexure. Some of these are against the Orders-in-Original of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad or the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad; some are against the Orders-in-appeal of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras or the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad; and one is against the Order-in-Appeal of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Some of the appeals have been filed directly to the Tribunal, whereas the others have been transferred to it under the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act. All these 15 matters (henceforth referred to as "appeals") are being dealt with as appeals to the Tribunal under Section 35B, Central Excises and Salt Act, as amended.2. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals (with some differences in individual cases, which will be referred to in their appropriate place), they were heard together, and a...
Kundanlal JaIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR255
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellant filed a suit for injunction against the respondent Mcd restraining them from dispossessing him from certain disputed premises. The suit was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge on 7.11.81. The Corporation filed an appeal. Notice of the appeal was directed to be issued by the Additional Ssj to the respondent. Attempts were made by the Corporation to get the service of the notice affected on the party directly and when the party could not be served, the Corporation filed process fee for notice to counsel but without any specific direction to that effect by the court. The office then issued notice to Mr. S C. Nigam, who was the counsel of the respondent in Court below. Mr. Nigam gave an endorsement on the notice received by him that he has not been engaged in the appeal so far and the party be served with the notice. The learned lower appellate court considered it sufficient service and adjourned the appeal for arguments to 5.1.83. After hearing the arguments t...
Raj Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes755; 26(1984)DLT173; 1984(6)DRJ284; 1984RLR397
M.L. Jain, J. (1) F.I.R. in this case was lodged on 26-5-1978 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code . The accused appears to have been arrested the same day. But the challan was filed on 15-11-1979. The accused was summoned on 7-3-1980. Since the M.L.C. filed with the challan did not disclose the nature of the injuries the challan was returned on 19-9-1980 to the Sho directing him to further investigate the case. The challan was again put up on 26-11-1981, by the Sho with the report that the duplicate of the Mlc was not available, but Dr. Anil Gupta had deposed in the accident claims case that Dr. Arun Goel had found multiple fractures on various parts of the body of the injured. Thereupon, the accused was again summoned and the case stood for proceedings under Section 251 Cr. P.C. It was contended then before the learned Magistrate that ;- (1)on 15-11-1979, the Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance because he could not do so on an incomplete chall...
F.L. Berawalla and anr. Vs. R.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes143; 26(1984)DLT176; 1984(7)DRJ6; 1984RLR313
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent Shri R.K.. Jain filed a complaint against (1) Shri F.L. Berawalla and (2) his daughter Smt. J.T. Saboo-wala, (3) Shri M.M. Bhatt, (4) Bombay Law House and (5) the Metropolitan Book Co., Pvt., Ltd., under Section (2) Accused No. I Berawalla is the author of the offending publication Central Excises (Law & Practice) 2nd edition, 1982. Accused No. 2 is the co-author. Accused No. 3 is the publisher of the book. Accused No. 4 is the firm of publisher and Accused No. 5 is the seller of the said book. It was alleged that the accused person have infringed the copy right of the complainant by substantially, lavishly and vulgarly copying from his works, by printing and publishing and selling such infringing work. A copy of each of the 3rd edition of the Central Excise Law Guide, fourth edition of the same book, 5th edition and 9th edition of the Central Excises Tariff of India and a copy of the Excise Law Times for the month of July, 1978 were placed on record. H...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Uma Laminated Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT187TriDel
1. The present proceedings arise out of the notice bearing F. No.198/B/13/94/81-C X.5, dated 21st July, 1981 issued by the Central Government to the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Uma Laminated) calling upon them to show cause why the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), should not set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 68/81 dated 9-2-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad and restore the Orders-in-Original dated 12-3-1980 and 5-8-1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad or pass orders as deemed fit. These proceedings have come to this Tribunal as transferred proceedings under Section 35-P of the Act and are being disposed of as if it were an appeal filed by the Central Government before the Tribunal.2. Uma Laminated are manufacturers of "Polyethylene Coated Paper" and "Polyethylene Sandwiched Paper" using...
Trichem Laboratories Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT185TriDel
1. This is an appeal of M/s. Trichem Laboratories against order-in-appeal No. S/49-1242/80R, dated 6-9-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The importers M/s. Trichem Laboratories had imported methyl dichloro acetate ex. S.S. Canadian Express, bill of entry cash No. 2376, dated 14-5-1979. They claimed refund of the additional customs duty (countervailing duty) by virtue of Notification No. 55/75-C.E., maintaining that methyl dichloro acetate was drug intermediate as it is used in the manufacture of chloramphenicol, which is obtained by treating L Base with methyl diehloro acetate. They were holders of certificate from the Food and Drug Administration, Bombay. Their claim was rejected both by the Assistant Collector and by the Appellate Collector, although the latter held that methyl dichloro acetate was actually used in the synthesis of chloramphenicol. But he also held that such use did not make the drug a drug intermediate. He pronounced that there was a distin...
New Suraj Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD124(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a private limited company, is in appeal for the assessment year 1975-76 against the ITO's penalty order under Section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,150. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty and, hence, this appeal.2. The assessee's counsel, Shri Vimal Gandhi, invited attention to certain undisputed facts to raise a legal objection to the validity of notice under Section 210 of the Act issued to the assessee-company. It was pointed out that notice under Section 210 dated 6-6-1974 was served on the assessee on 10-6-1974, asking for payment of advance tax of Rs. 45,340 on an income of Rs. 66,420. This was the income assessed for the assessment year 1971-72, which was the latest previous year in respect of which it had been assessed by way of regular assessment as per Section 209 of the Act. It was also stated that Section 209A of the Act was introduced in the Act only from 1-6-1978 and the assessee's c...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Bimla Vati Mehra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD316(Delhi)
1. By these applications moved under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), the Commissioner has sought the following common question, said to be questions of law, arising out of the order passed in WT Appeal Nos. 129 to 132 (Asr.) of 1982 for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 to be referred to their Lordships of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh for their opinion. The questions are as under: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that value of the assessee's residential house should be computed in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, which was not in existence on the relevant valuation date? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rule 1BB inserted with effect from 1-4-1978 was operative retrospectively 2. Facts which have given rise to these questions are that the assessee held a pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »