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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Art Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR881(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. For the assessment year 1968-69, the following question has been referred to us :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that an appeal under Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable against the order of the Income-tax Officer charging interest under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This point has been decided by a Bench of this court in CIT v. Mahabir Parshad and Sons : [1980]125ITR165(Delhi) and it has been held that if there is a competent appeal from an assessment order under Section 246(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, then the question of interest under Section 139 may also be dealt with by the appellate order, but by itself no appeal lies. As in the present case, the appeal was competent, it was open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to deal also with the question of interest under Section 139.3. It was urged by learned counsel for the Revenue that the said decision requi...
Dunlop India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals arose from the following orders of the Appellate Collector: 1. No. C. 3/185/77, C. 3/2070, 2071, 2072, 2692 & 2947/76 dated 2 12.1977.2. The product which is the subject of dispute is Dutrex RT, a proprietary product of Shell International, London. It is used as a tackifier for compounding rubber in the production of rubber tyres. The goods were being assessed under item 27(7)(2) Old Customs Tariff and heading 27.10(7) new Customs Tariff, and C.V. duty under Central Excise item 10. The dispute that we have to settle is with respect to the levy of countervailing duty. The importers M/s. Dunlop India Limited claimed that for years this product Dutrex RT had been assessed on import at all ports to customs countervailing duty under Central Excise Tariff item 10. But suddenly in about 1974, the Madras Custom House decided it should change its testing methods, (Till then the test was made in accordance with the Board's letter F. No. 8/23/56-CX. HI dated 7.11.1956). In a...
Devarsons Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT135TriDel
1. This matter is being heard and disposed of in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the Order and judgment delivered on 28-7-1983 in S.C.A. No. 444 of 1978. By the said order, the Court quashed and set aside the Order-in-Revision No.1425/77, dated 25-7-1977/4-8-1977 passed by the Government of India in the revision petition filed by Devarsons Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Devarsons, for brevity's sake) against the Order-in-Appeal No. V 9(14) 2-2/OA/71/1841/ Bombay dated 19-2-1974 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Court remanded the matter to this Tribunal for deciding it afresh in the light of the evidence and the material that may be produced on the questions indicated in their Lordships' judgment dated 28-7-1983 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties afresh. Copies of the order and the judgment were forwarded to this Tribunal by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court on 6-10-1983.2. At this s...
Hindustan Chemical Works. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT28TriDel
1. These are four revision applications filed before the Government of India (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal) under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against No. 454-457/CE/1980 dated 2-7-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate falling under Item No. 14BB of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and were working under (the now) defunct Chapter VI1-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. As per the allegations made by the appellants, on account of serious differences among the partners, the functioning of the appellant firm became impossible and it was decided to close down the unit permanently and to stop the production. Therefore, the manufacture was completely stopped w.e.f. 1-8-1977 and accordingly, the duty liability fixed under the simplified procedure was not discharged for that month onwards. An intimation was accordingly given to...
K.K. Khanna and Another Vs. M/S Expo Enterprises India, New Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1723; 1984(2)Crimes81; 1984RLR426
ORDER1. Admitted. Arguments heard. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-12-1983 of Shri K. P. Verma, Addl. District Judge; Delhi whereby he directed the lodging of a criminal complaint against the appellants for the offences alleged to have been committed by them under Section 191 read with S. 193, Penal Code, for their having pleaded under ground No. 4(13) of the appeal as follows :- 'that respondent 2 is not party in the proceedings ......' 2. The appellants supported the aforesaid ground of their appeal even by means of an affidavit dated 31-10-1981 deposed to by the appellant K. K. Khanna on behalf of the appellants. Respondent 2 was a party in the insolvency proceedings and had subsequently on his own application been substituted as the petitioner-creditor in those proceedings. 3. The perusal of the impugned order shows that it was nowhere opined, or recorded as a fact that the lodging of the complaint against the appellants was expedient in the interest of justice a...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Popular Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR666(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us for assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right iun law in holding that the deposit of Rs. 50,000 had been properly explained within the meaning of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and could not be treated as its unexplained income, and the consequent deletion of the disallowance of interest of Rss. 5,804 for the assesssment year 1967-68, Rs. 9,958 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 602 in the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. There are three income-tax references but as there is only one question, this judgment will dispose of all the three references. 3. The facts of the case are that in the assessment proceeding for the year 1967-68, cash deposits standing in the name of Shrimathi Dugra Devi, Shrimathi Parveen Kanta, Shrimathi Suraj Kanta, Shrimathi Trishla Devi and Shrimathi Suresh Rani, which were Rs. 10,000 each, were noticed ...
Padam Shree N.N. Mohan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Del)165; [1984]150ITR92(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. For the assessment year 1970-71, the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the refund of annuity of Rs. 12,013 to the assessed as executor of the estate of his late father, Padam Shree N. N. Mohan, was his income and assessable in his hands as executor of the estate of the deceased ?' 2. The annuity in question was due on account of the annuity deposit scheme mentioned in Chapter XXII-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The facts stated in the statement of case submitted to this court show that a sum of Rs. 1,57,250 was deposited by the late Padam Shree N. N. Mohan which had to be refunded in ten equal Installments of principal and interest under s. 280D of the Act. The sum mentioned in the question refereed to this court appears to be one of these Installments. 3. According to the assessed, ...
Madan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR533(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. For the assessment year 1966-67, the following question has been referred to us as a result of the order of this court dated May 28, 1974, passed in I.T.C. No. 7 of 1973, under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 10,000 computed as having been expended on the marriage of a son, over and above the sum disclosed by the assessed, is the income of the assessed from undisclosed sources ?' 2. The accounting year relevant to this assessment year ended on June 30, 1966. the assessed was a partner of a firm, M/S. Ushnak Mal Mool Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The assessed's son was married on November 16, 1965. The assessed claimed that the marriage expenses were Rs. 9,000 out of which Rs. 4,000 were met by gifts from friends and relations, while Rs. 5,000 were met by withdrawal from the firm on November 20, 1965. The ITO took the view that the exact amount of ex...
Rajkumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT172
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The injured who happens to be the son of the victim has since been examined and has been declared hostile. Thakur, said to be the only independent witness is said to be absconding and in any event, his presence could not be procured on one or two occasions in the past. It is said that there is no likelihood of Thakur being traced. The possibility of the other two members of the aggrieved family not supporting the prosecution case could not, thereforee, be ruled out at this stage. Petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 . with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes further personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000.00 . with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction as aforesaid undertaking so abjure violence and to be of good conduct during the pendency of the trial....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. J. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Del)168; [1984]149ITR215(Delhi)
Wadhwa, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,02,500 is assessable as capital gains other than long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessed ?' 2. The case pertains to a property which was under construction in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. M/S. Satish Kumar Sood and Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractors') were the owners of this property. They entered into anagreement, to sell, with one Krishan Prasad. This was on November 29, 1966. The price was settled at Rs. 4,95,000. An earnest money of Rs, 20,000 in cash was paid by Krishan Prasad to the contractors at that time. The construction was to be completed in accordance with certain specifications, which were annexed to the agreement to sell. The agreement provided that the sale deed could be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »