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.
AmIn Chand Payarelal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT126TriDel
F.S. Gill, J. (President) and B.B. Gujral, D.N. Lal, (T) and S. Duggal, (J) Members 1. This appeal has been referred to a larger Bench because the Bench hearing this appeal did not agree with the decision dated 17-8-1983 given by another Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal No. ED(SP)67/83C. This is how the matter is before us and we have heard counsel for both sides at great length and given our consideration to the matter as well.2. The main question for consideration is whether the appellant is bound to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal as required by Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (as amended by Finance Act No. 2 being Act No. 44 of 1980) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The amendment inserted a new chapter VIA containing a series of Sections 35, 35A to 35P and 36 in the Act in substitution of the previous Sections 35, 35A and 36 of the old Act. We will first extract the relevant amended provis...
Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT671TriDel
1. In this Revision Application to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an Appeal pursuant to Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the facts, in brief, are- (a) the appellant received duty paid Acetic Acid for conversion into Acetic Anhydride on a job work basis after having obtained permission to do so and avail of the benefit of Notification No. 119/75, dated 30th April, 1975 from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise; (b) subsequently, the permission was revoked with the result that the Appellant had to pay an amount of Rs. 4,255.44 as additional duty calculated on the basis that the Notification did not apply to the conversion undertaken by the Appellant; (c) subsequently, a notice requiring the Appellant to show cause as to why the differential duty specified in annexure attached to the notice should not be realised from the Appellant and why the concession under Notification No. 119/75, dated...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Meattles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR569(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. 1. In this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short called 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of the court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the Crown Flour Mills would not be included in the net wealth of the assessed company for the assessment year 1958-59 ?' 2. The reference arises out of the assessment to wealth-tax of M/s. Meattles Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi for the assessment year 1958-59. The date of valuation of the assessed is March 31, 1958. For the assessment year 1957-58, in compliance with the direction of this court in W.T.C. No. 1-D/65, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short called 'the Tribunal') drew up a statement of the case and referred for the decision of this court the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assets of the Crown Flour Mills...
Rajinder Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ77
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Petitioner No. I herein while in service of the Government filed an application for eviction against Respondent No. 1 in respect of ground floor and first floor of the premises No. Z/9, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi under Section 14-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as amended) hereinafter referred to as the Act and presented it on January 7, 1977. Subsequently he made an application to the Rent Controller, Delhi that he did not want to proceed with is eviction petition and accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn. After retirement from Government service, the petitioner against filed a petition for eviction on January 11, 1979 under Section 14-A of the Act in respect of the said premises being eviction petition No. B-53/79. Section 14-A was added by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 with the object of conferring a right on Government servant landlords to recover immediate possession of premises belonging to them when the cause of action as mentioned the...
Sneh Lata Gupta Vs. Ramnik Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ257
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) These three applications are being decided by the same order. (2) The aforesaid applications are connected with Suit No. 498/83 filed by Ms. Sneh Lata Gupta. The suit is for partition of properties described in Schedules 'A' to 'C' attached with the plaint, rendition of accounts regarding income of those properties and appointment of receiver etc. These properties were left by B. D. Gupta who died on October 20, 1970 leaving behind three sons, four daughters and one widow. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of B. D. Gupta. Out of the remaining three, one was Mrs. Anita Kapur who died on 30th July, 1972 leaving behind a son Deepak Kapur and husband Suraj Kapur, defendants 13 and 12 respectively. The remaining two. daughters are Dr. (Mrs.) S. D. Singh and Ms. Prakash Gupta, defendants 10 and 11.. (3) Two of the sons are alive and they are defendants No. 1 and 2. The third son K. C. Gupta died on December 22, 1975 leaving behind defendant No. 5 as the widow and defe...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. R.G. Govan and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: [1984]156ITR875(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. There is no appearance for the assessed, but we have heard counsel for the Department on the question whether a reference should be asked for concerning the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the amount of Rs. 19,802 in respect of two bills was allowable expenditure when the same amount had been claimed and allowed by the Income-tax Officer in the subsequent assessment year 1963-64 and when the assessed is maintaining accounts on mercantile system ?' 2. We may at once say that reference to the subsequent year in the question seems to be out of place as there was no reference of this in the substantive order of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal. What appears to have happened is that a substantial sum was placed in the suspense account of the Bombay branch of the assessed. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 19,802 out of this suspense account shoul...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Super Fine Cables Private Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)84; [1985]154ITR532(Delhi)
Kapur J.1. For the assessment year 1968-69, the following question has been referred to us as a result of this court's order under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the income arising out of the letting out of the factory building fell for assessment under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' and not under the head 'Income from other sources' ?' 2. The facts as stated by the Tribunal relevant to the question may be quoted : 'The assessed is a private limited company incorporated on January 10, 1959. For the year under reference, a return had been filed disclosing an income of Rs. 2,622. It set up its factory in 1959 for the manufacture of cables. For some reason or the other, the manufacture of cables could not be started till the year 1961, when the factory building was leased out on a rent of Rs. 750 per month. The income from the lease of the factory was assessed as 'Income from other source' after allowin...
R.B. Seth Ram Rattan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR612(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. For the assessment year 1957-58, the following two questions have been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the initiation of proceedings under section 147(a) was justified (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed (individual) was assessable under section 2(6A)(e) in respect of the advances made by the company to the firm during the period October 1, 1955, to September 30, 1956 ?' 2. These questions have been referred as a result of separate applications by the assessed and the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. Question No. (1) is at the instance of the assessed and question No. (2) at the instance of the Department. 3. It is convenient to deal with question No. (2) first. There was an account in the books of M/s. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. during the period October 1, 1955, to September 30, 1956, in the name of M/s. Ajudhiya ...
R.C. Gupta Vs. O.P. Gupta Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi248; 1984RLR267
Sultan Singh, J.(1) Om Prakash Gupta, respondent before me filed an eviction petition against his tenant S.K. Gupta and sub-tenant R.C. Gupta on the grounds covered by clauses (a), (b), (d) & (L) of the proviso to S. 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein the Act). Respondent R.C. Gupta the alleged sub-tenant filed his reply on 13.11.1980 denying that respondent S.K. Gupta had sub-let the premises to him without permission and consent of the landlord. He stated that he was a lawful sub-tenant since 24.5.1961. It appears that subsequently respondent R.C. Gupta filed an amended reply on 13.7.1983 in which he said that he was a lawful sub-tenant in the disputed premises as the same have been let out to him by S.K. Gupta with the consent and knowledge of the landlord and he is residing with his family as a lawful subtenant. The landlord at no stage raised the objection regarding the sub-letting. In the additional pleas he also added that he was a tenant in the premises in disput...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. R. G. Govan and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)43CTR(Del)286; [1985]156ITR875(Delhi)
D. K. KAPUR J. - There is no appearance for the assessed, but we have heard counsel for the Department on the question whether a reference should be asked for concerning the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the amount of Rs. 19,802 in respect of two bills was allowable expenditure when the same amount had been claimed and allowed by the Income-tax Officer in the subsequent assessment year 1963-64 and when the assessed is maintaining accounts on mercantile system ?'We may at once say that reference to the subsequent year in the question seems to be out of place as there was no reference of this in the substantive order of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal. What appears to have happened is that a substantial sum was placed in the suspense account of the Bombay branch of the assessed. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 19,802 out of this suspense account should be i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »