Delhi Court May 1984 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Water and Power Development Consultancy ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1987]163ITR329(Delhi)

D.K. Kapur, J.1. This application u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, seeks a reference on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding the view that interest of Rs. 99,730 earned by the assessed during this year on short term Bank Deposit is a business income though 'earning of such interest is neither the normal business activity nor incidental to the business of assessed company '? 2. The only dispute regarding the said sum is whether it should be classified under the held 'business' or under the head other sources'. We are of the view that this raises a question of law. We would accordingly direct the Tribunal to state a case regarding the above question of law to this court. Parties will bear their own costs. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Water and Power Dev. Consultancy Servic ...

Court: Delhi

D.K. Kapur, J.1. This application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeks a reference on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding the view that the interest of Rs. 99,730 earned by the assessed during this year on short-term bank deposit is business income though the earning of such interest is neither the normal business activity nor incidental to the business of the assessed-company ?' 2. The only dispute regarding the said sum is whether it should be classified under the head 'Business' or under the head Other sources'. We are of the view that this raises a question of law and we would accordingly direct the Tribunal to state a case regarding the above question of law to this court. Parties will bear their own costs. ...

Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1984]149ITR372(Delhi)

Wadhwa, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', referred, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the following question for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 12,02,325 (forming part of the sum of Rs. 25,46,717) credited to the 'provision for rent of UNICEF Plant and Machinery Account', is a reserve within the meaning of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The facts of the case are brief. The Government of India entered into an agreement with UNICEF and WHO, Agencies of the United Nations Organisation, whereby the Government of India was to receive free of cost plant and machinery and free technical assistance for manufacture of DDT in India. Pursuant thereto, the Government of India incorporated a joint stock company under the name and style of Hindustan Insecticides Limited, the assessed here...

Shah Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1985Delhi358; ILR1984Delhi473

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The contractor (M/s. Shah Construction Company Limited) has filed the present appeal against the decision of the learned single judge (Sultan Singh, J.), allowing an application of the respondent Corporation (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act').(2) To the application , the contractor had raised various objections. The court framed the following issues: 1. whether the petition is within time 2. Whether the claims are barred by the principles, of rest judicata 3. Whether any valid arbitration agreement is subsisting between the parties 4. If issue No. 3 is found in favor of the petitioner, then are the disputes between the parties liable to be referred for arbitration 5. Relief.(3) Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issues and were decided by a judgment dated 22nd December 1978. Both the issues were decided against the contractor. The other issues were decided by a judgment dated 10th July 1979. These v/...

B.B. Gandhi Vs. Dharam Inder Madan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 26(1984)DLT233

J.D. Jain, J.(1) This Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 29th August, 1981 of an Additional Rent Controller whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner or leave to defend and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.). (2) The facts giving rise to this Revision Petition briefly are that Sh. Dharam Inder Madan and Krishan Lal Madan, respondents 1 and 2 are real brothers and Smt. Indrawati, respondent No. 3 is their real sister. On 2nd December, 1980, the respondents made an application for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises viz. a portion of first floor as detailed in para8 of the eviction petition of House No. 18/15, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of respondent No. 1 as residence for himself and members of his family. It was an averred that respondent No. 1 was due to retire on...

Vikas Watch Manufacturing Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT21TriDel

1. The question for decision in this appeal is correctness of demand of duty and imposition of penalty by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur on the appellants by his order dated 16th May, 1983. The appellants are a small scale industrial Unit registered with Director of Industries, Rajasthan as also with the Development Commissioner, Government of India. They are engaged in the manufacturing of Wrist-watches. The Development Commissioner (SSI), Ministry of Industry, G.O.I. by a Communication dated 25-7-1979 addresed to the Director of Industries, Rajasthan approved phased production programme in respect of the appellants. By this communication, appellants' unit was to manufacture/assemble hand-woven 17 jewels full lever, non-automatic wrist watches. The production programme was for 20,000 watches in the first year, 30,000 watches for second year, 40,000 watches for 3rd year and 50,000 watches each for 4th to 7th year. The communication inter alia permitted the appellants to impor...

State Bank of India Vs. Jaipur Udyog and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1986Delhi357; ILR1984Delhi694

Avadh Behart, J. (1) The plaintiff, State Bank of India, has brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,45,37,042.73p against Jaipur Udyog Limited and others. Among other defendants there arc guarantors who have been sued on the basis of their guarantee, Jaipur Udyog Limited being the principal debtory Jaipur Udyog Ltd. is a company based in Rajasthan ( the Company). Their registered office is at Sawai Madhopur in Rajasthan. This company has been declared by the State of Rajasthan as a 'Relief Undertaking' under section 3 of the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961. The Company will hereinafter be referred to as a 'Relief Undertaking'. The Rajasthan Relief. Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 will be hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act. Section 4 of the Act inter alias provides : (1)* * * (a) * * * (b) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced, or, if pending, shall be proceeded with, against any industrial undertaking dur...

Maharashtra Agro Indus. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT14TriDel

1. The appeal has been filed against the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune dated 13-7-1982. The appellants are a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The management of the Corporation is carried on through the Board of Directors appointed by the Government of Maharashtra. The Corporation has units at Pune, Pachora, Nagpur and Rasayani. At Pune and Pachora Unit, some parts of Bullock carts, falling under Tariff Item No. 68, are manufactured. At Nagpur Unit, P.P. Foods and at Rasayani Unit, Fertilisers are manufactured. In respect of Pune Unit, the Corporation assembles bullock carts at various sites. The main frame, side frame, axle bracket, yoke pipe etc.are manufactured and cleared from the units at Pune and Pachora. The other parts required for assembly of bullock carts are purchased from the open market. The bullock carts are assembled at the sites of the buyers without the aid of power. Such ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pondicherry Papers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT17TriDel

1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras filed an appeal to this Tribunal under Section 33(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi No.248-249 of 1982 dated 7-8-1982.2. As per the facts on record M/s. Pondicherry Papers Limited the respondents manufacture inter alia M.F. (Machine Finished) Violet Wove Paper in their factory. During the course of verification of stock and accounts by the Central Excise Staff on 8-12-1980, the officers found 4 rolls of M.F. Violate Wove Paper in the finishing room but the stock card showed Nil stock on that date. The officers seized the said four rolls since they were not accounted for in the R.G. 1 record as required under Central Excise Rules and as it also appeared that the said paper would be correctly classifiable under Item No. 17(2), C.E.T.as it stood then, whereas the assessees had declared the Violet Wove Paper as writing and printing paper under Tariff Item No. 17(1) o...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Colonizers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)332; [1985]154ITR50(Delhi)

Kapur, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for the assessment year 1970-71 : 'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in directing the Income-tax Officer to treat the firm as a registered firm for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The firm in question had four partners and an application for registration of the firm was filed in From No. 11, which was signed by only two partners. Shri Chander Singh, one of the partners, had signed on behalf of the remaining two partners. The ITO pointed out the defect as a result of which now of the partners signed the from but the fourth partner did not sign. It was claimed that there was a dispute amongst the partners and the fourth partners was not co-operating with assessed firm. An attempt was made to persuade the ITO to issue summons to produce the fourth partner but the ITO did not call him. As a result, the registr...