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.
Sardari Lal Vs. Ram Rakha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1098; 26(1984)DLT20; ILR1984Delhi309; 1984RLR333
ORDER As per compromise between the parties, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the appellant is given time till the decision of his L.P.A. No. 102 of 1969 pending in the High Court for vacating the premises in question and in case the decision in the L.P.A. is against him, he shall surrender vacant possession of the premises in question within 15 days of the decision. He is allowed time to pay the arrears of rent till date at the rate of Rs. 20/- p.m. as ordered by the trial court by or before 31-12-1975 and future rent by the 15th of each succeeding month. In case he commits default in complying with the same, he shall be liable to eviction forthwith. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Announced. 1-9-1975 Sd/- J. D. Jain. Rent Control TribunalDelhi. 4. L.P.A. No. 102 of 1969 referred to in the statements and orders of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, had arisen in these circumstances. House Nos. 182-185 (New) or VIII/97 (old) in Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri G...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)97; [1985]154ITR561(Delhi)
1. The CIT has sought a reference of the following question under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to this court :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the AAC's order cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,02,765 imposed by the ITO under s. 9(a) of the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, for the delayed filing of the return for this year ?"2. Under the Act, the return had to be filing by September 30, 1969. It was actually filed on January 31, 1970. The ITO rejected the assessed's plea that the delay was on account of the impression that there were no chargeable profits and, hence, there was a delay and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,02,765. This penalty was struck down by the AAC following the judgment of the Calcutta High court in Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 80 ITR 627, where it was held that held that there could be no penalty for the late filing of the return under the Super Profits Tax Act. This order...
Ashok Karam Vs. A.T. Jotwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ121
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 31st January, 1981 of an Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition which had been filed by the petitioner/landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under clause (e) to the proviso of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter refer to as The Act.) (2) C.R. 388/81 The facts of this case in brief are that Government but property bearing No. 42/7, East Patel Nagar, Municipal No. 839 was allotted to late Sh. Jai Ram Dass, grand-father of the petitioner by the Department of Rehabilitation in the year 1950. The adjoining property No. 42/6, which too was Government built property, was allotted to Sh. J.J. Karam, father of the petitioner. Both these properties had similar type of accommodation. The premises in dispute comprising three rooms, a kitchen, a both room, a lavatory, back courtyard and one half of the front courtyard etc. was let out by the deceased Jai Ram Dass to t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT522TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 made to the Tribunal against Order-in-Appeal No. 502/Cal./82, dated 21-6-1982 passed by the Collector of Central, Excise, Calcutta.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of manipulated iron and steel pipes flanges and sittings of the following varieties, commonly known as piping products :- (v) Pipe coils (economiser, superheater and other types of pipe coils).The local Central Excise Officer classified these 11 varieties of goods under Item 68 of the First Schedule on and from 1st March, 1975, prior to which date they had been classified under Item 26AA and were exempted from duty. The Department claims that the Company did not file any appeal or revision petition against the classification and continued to pay duty on and from 1-3-1975 under protest, though without formally appealing against the classification list with which t...
D.C.M. Data Products Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT254TriDel
1. The question for decision in these fifty-four (54) appeals arising out of four(4) Orders-in-appeals dated 21-5-1981, 18-9-1981, 5-8-1982 and 8-10-1982 is whether Floppy Disk Drive, Line Printers, Magnetic Tape Drive, Dot Matrix Printers and Digital Tape Transport imported by the appellants under various consignments and Bill of Entries are entitled to benefit of duty concession under Notification Nos.272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979 and 115-Cus.,dated 19-6-1980. Notification No. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 exempted Computers and Computer Systems falling under sub-item No. (2) of Heading No.84.51/55 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from so much of the portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon as was in excess of 40 % ad valoerm and the whole of the Addl. duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Notification No. 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979, which superseded Notification No.272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 exempted Computer an...
Dineker Rai D. Desai and Others Vs. R.P. BhasIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas14(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. Company Petition No. 58 of 1979, which is a petition under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, is pending before the company judge. Company Application (C.A. No. 111 of 1983) was moved by the petitioners seeking directions regarding the year ending March 31, 1982. The application was filed on February 7, 1983. It was claimed in the application that the existing executive committee of the company became functus officio on September 30, 1982, and could not legally function beyond that date. The annual general meeting had already been delayed and it was prayed that certain articles and rules should be changed or amended to bring about a fair and legal meeting and elections. It was also prayed that the register of members should be corrected first and bogus members be removed. Furthermore, it was claimed, the elections should be held under the supervision of the court with an impartial and independent chairman. 2. This application was decided on July 22, 1983, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. World Agriculture Fair Memorial Farmers ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1984
Reported in: [1985]155ITR370(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, in the case of the present assessed is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole or any portion of the income of the assessed was exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. From the facts, it appears that the assessed is an association of persons constituted by a deed dated December 11, 1963, which was registered as a society in November, 1963, under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The corpus of the assessed-trust was Rs. 5,83,137 which came from the World Agriculture Fair organized by Bharat Krishak Samaj. The only source of income of the trust is from a building purchased in 1964 situated in Connaught Place area of New Delhi. The trust deed shows that the principal objects are many, i.e., to establish institutions for education, granting scholarships, to maintain and develop the World Agriculture Fair Memorial Shivaji College affiliated t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR676(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax the following question have been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 78,00,000 transferred to an account styled as 'contingency reserve' represented a reserve and was deductible from chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 84,16,116 being the credit balance in an account styled as 'contingency reserve'should be treated as a reserve as on the first day of the previous year in computing the capital of the company for the purposes of the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. Similar questions except for the amounts have arisen in past years also. For the assessment year ...
Decent Dyeing Company Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT782TriDel
1. The appelllant is M/s. Decent Dyeing Company. The case relates to a demand for payment of differential duty for the period May,1976 to July,1976 with reference to texturising of base acrylic yarn received by them from manufacturers of such base yarn. They had cleared such texturised yarn on payment of duty at Rs. 10/- per kg. claiming benefit of notification No. 125 of 1975. The differential duty demanded was at Rs. 24/- per kg. leviable on the base yarn. They had denied their liability but the demand had been confirmed by the Asstt. Collector under his order dated 8-1-1983 and the same had been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dt. 27.8.83. This appeal is against the order of the Collr. (Appeals).2. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate for the appellant contends that duty on base yarn is payable by the manufacturer of the base yarn only and the burden of showing that the said duty had not been paid by the manufacturer is on the department and without reference to this p...
Asapcs (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT3TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is correctness or otherwise of demand of duty of Rs. 5,557.50 Basic and Rs. 277.87 Special, besides a penalty of Rs. 500/-for contravention of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, imposed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, XVII Division, Calcutta by his order dated 25-1-1982/19-3-1982 and upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by his order dated 18-12-1982.2. The appellants hold a L-4 Licence for manufacture of Motor Vehic les falling under T.I. No. 34 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants filed their Classification List bearing No. I/Motor Vehicle/80 dated 7-10-1980 claiming classification under T.I. 34-I (1) and exemption from payment of whole of Central Excise Duty leviable thereon in terms of Notification No. 52/77-C.E., dt. 6-4-1977. This Classification List was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta XI Division on 23-10-1980. Later the Superintendent of Cen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »