Delhi Court May 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.
Gufic Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT62TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as a Revision Application to the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. Another appeal No. CD(SB)(T) A. No. 833/81-C was listed for hearing on 18-5-1984 and a notice to that effect was despatched by the Registry to the appellants and their Advocates. In reply, a letter dated 4-5-1984 was received from M/s Kantawala & Co., Advocates & Solicitors, Bombay, stating that, in view of certain matters fixed for hearing before the Bombay Bench, Dr. Nitin Kantawala would not be in a position to attend the hearing before this Special Bench at New Delhi on the same date. In the circumstances, it was requested that the hearing might be adjourned to a suitable date in the month of June, 1984. On the day of hearing, however, Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, appeared in the Court and submitted that 4 appeals of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-v Vs. Smt. Kulwant Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)343; [1985]156ITR70(Delhi)
Wadhwa, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the contents of the returns filed on October 15, 1965, and November 13, 1969, the penalty livable on the assessed under s. 271(1)(c) should be calculated on the basis of the provisions of s. 271(1)(c), as they stood prior to their amendment in 1968 or whether the provisions of that section as amended in 1968, are applicable ?' 2. Gurbachan Singh was carrying on his business as a sole proprietor in the name of M/s. General Radiator Workshop and was engaged in the manufacture and sale of car radiators and components thereof. For the assessment year 1965-66, he filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 13,831. This was on October 15, 1965. Before the assessment was made, he filed a revised retu...
ishwar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR301(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the assessed which is a company manufacturing and selling refractories. A gratuity scheme was introduced on March 31, 1970, with effect from January 1, 1970, which applied only to such employees who were not entitled to the benefit of provident fund or bonus. The ITO disallowed the gratuity relating to earlier years, but allowed the gratuity relating to the assessment year in question. On appeal, the AAC held that the liability for Rs. 1,55,997 had accrued before the beginning of the accounting year; hence, the ITO was justified in disallowing that amount. 2. On appeal to the Tribunal, it was urged that though the scheme was introduced from March 31, 1970, it was to operate from January 1, 1970. The Tribunal noted that the actuarial valuation was made on May 24, 1972, and, hence, the account must have been kept open and antedated. It was observed that the liability which was ascertained on May 24, 1972, could not be provided for in the a...
Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)104; [1986]157ITR683(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred to this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following four questions of law concerning three assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to the deduction in the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 of the sums of Rs. 2,49,719 and Rs. 2,27,944, respectively, paid by it to its sole selling agents by way of commission 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to the deduction in the computation of its business income of the following amounts of interest paid by the assessed for the non-payment in time of the sugarcane cess and the purchase tax payable by it Item 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66Rs. Rs. Rs.Sugarcane cess 2,46,837 2,26,383 1,34,355Purchase tax 53,294 36,844 1,097------------ ------------- ----------3,00,131 2,63,227 1,...
Ajaib Singh Vs. Delhi State Industrial Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1984
Reported in: [1985(50)FLR56]; ILR1984Delhi734; 1984(2)SLJ502(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a declaration that Rule 26 of the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff Service) Rules, 1978 is ultra virus and unconstitutional and the order dated January 22, 1982 terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect without enquiry in terms of the said Rules alleging that the petitioner has been indulging in activities. which are against the security and interest of the Corporation resulting in the loss of confidence by the Management is void. (2) M/S. Delhi Small Industries Development Corporation Private Ltd., the name of which was subsequently changed to Ms. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the Corpoiation) ig a company, originally incorporated on 15th day of February, 1971 under the Companies Act, 1956. The main objects of the Corporation to be pursued by it on Its incorporation are given in the Memorandum of Associatio...
Jagdish Chand Vs. Union of India and Inspector General of Police
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1984
Reported in: 1985LabIC169; 1984RLR575
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) The challenge in this petition is to the order of termination of service dated 11.9.1975 passel by S.P., Delhi under proviso to rule 5 of the C.C.S. (Temporary service) Rules 1965 and to the appellate order dated 29.11.1975 annexures 'C' and 'D' to the petition. The orders have been challenged on the grounds of discrimination, being vocative of Articles 14, 16, 311(1) and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. (2) The petitioner was appointed to the post of S.I. in Delhi Police by open competitive examination by order dated 5.6.1975 along with several other persons. He was selected in 15% reserved quota for schedule castes community. Soon after his appointment, the petitioner was sent up for training to the Police Training School, Mehrauli. He had hardly completed three months and 18 days in training while impugned order terminating service was served on him while his juniors who were appointed along with him, were retained service. According to petitioner though the...
Ashoke International (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1706Tri(Delhi)
1.This appeal dated 19-4-1980 was filed (as a revision petition under Section 36 of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944), against order-in-appeal No. 26/WB/80 dated 11-1-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta which agreed with order (original) No. 1/Paper/77 dated 18-11-1977 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta IV Division. The appeal dated 19-4-1980 filed by M/s. Ashoke International (P) Ltd. had been dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant on 17-1-1983, but it was restored on 18-5-1984 on which day it was also heard.2. The trouble arose when the Assistant Collector by his order dated 18-11-1977 ruled that M/s. Ashoke International was required to pay duty for the paper it manufactured. This manufacture is done by subjecting white tissue paper to dyeing. This coloured tissue paper was held by Central Excise to be dutiable and so a demand for Rs. 2,52,159.36 was made. The Assistant Collector said the coloured tissue paper was...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Precision Metal Works and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR693(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. M/s. Precision Metal Works has two partners, Shri R. L. Kapoor and Shri S. N. Sood, with a 75 per cent. share and 25 per cent. share, respectively. There are three references before us (ITR Nos. 29 to 31 of 1975) for the assessment year 1964-65, which related to the firm as well as each of the partners. The questions are as follows : 'A. IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer could be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as the ITO failed to add the sum of Rs. 40,750 in the assessment of the firm accepting the surrender made by the partners, particularly having regard to the provisions contained in section 68 of the I.T. Act B. IN THE CASE OF EACH OF THE PARTNERS : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated July 18, 1968, could be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, bec...
Ved Prakash Mittal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi325; 1985CriLJ854; 1985(1)Crimes936; 26(1984)DLT35; 1984RLR487
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The plaintiff Ved Prakash Mittal entered into an agreement for the construction of Government Higher Secondary School (Scheme II-A) at Tulsi Nagar, Phase II. The agreement contained the following arbitration clause: 'Clause 25 : 'EXCEPT where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions, hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality or workmanship of materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, Central Public ...
G.D. Tewari and Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT74
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This appeal is fully covered by the decision of the full bench in Ved Prakash Mithal v. Union of India. (Suit No. 625-A of 1982) (1). In that suit we have, pronounced the order today. (2) The learned Judge in the impunged order followed the decision of the division bench in Kishan Chand v. Union of India. 2nd (1974) Del 673. Following Kishan Chand) he held that the petition of the contractor under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not legally maintainable and that court can neither appoint an arbitrator itself nor compel the Chief Engineer to make such an appointment. On this view he dismissed the petition. (3) In Ved Prakash Mithal a full bench has overruled the decision in Kishan Chand v. Union of India (supra). The full beach has held that the court has the power to make the appointment if the Chief Engineer refuses to make. (4) In Kishan Chand the division bench held that the court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act has no power to appoint an a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »