Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 93 results (0.021 seconds)British Aerospace Aircraft Group Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)21ITD26(Delhi)
1. Both the appeals are by the assessee, a non-resident company. The assessment years involved are 1979-80 and 1980-81 with respective accounting periods having ended on 31-12-1978 and 31-12-1979.Assessments for both the years have been framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. Returns of income for both the assessment years were filed on 29-9-1981. For the assessment year 1979-80 the income declared stood at Rs. 2,87,45,611 while for the assessment year 1980-81 the said figure stood at Rs. 5,82,86,500. Assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 completed at Rs. 4,50,90,966 while for the assessment year 1980-81 the assessed income stands at Rs. 7,74,73,957. Facts as also the stand of the lower authorities and the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee being identical for both the years, the reasoning of the learned ITO in the assessment order dated 11-3-1983 relating to the assessment year 1979-80 stands reproduced hereunder in...
Tag this Judgment!National thermal Power Corpn. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)12ITD99(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, a company, being the public sector undertaking, incorporated on 7-10-1975. The object of the assessee-company is developing of thermal power in all its aspects, including installation, generation, operation and maintenance of thermal power and associated transmission networks. The assessee has been depositing its funds, not immediately required on short-term deposits, with banks. The interest received on such deposits during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, i.e., the year under appeal, amounts to Rs. 22,84,994. This amount was offered for assessment and the assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on 29-12-1980 on that basis.The appeal was filed against the order of assessment. A number of additions/disallowances were challenged. The inclusion of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,84,960 was neither challenged nor was considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), who considered a...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Sueb Ahmed Alias Raju Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT275; 1985(8)DRJ298
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The appellant, Shah Sueb Ahmed, has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 19th May, 1984, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he was convicted under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and under Section 398 read with Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also challenged the order of the same date imposing a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000.00 for having committed the said offence. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. (2) In criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1984 he has challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By this judgment both the appeals are being disposed of. (3) Mr. I.U. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, has at the outset raised a plea that the court of Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to try the appellant as he was less than 16 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. To ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandoz Limited and anr. Vs. Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT222
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) This appeal arises from an order dated 26-4-1983 of Shri P.S.Sharma, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the issue of the interim injunction against the defendants from marketing the product 'Synthocilin' was declined. It was, however, directed that the defendants would continue to file copies of their accounts duly authenticated every year till the disposal of the suit with regard to the sale of this product. (2) Briefly stated the background is that the trade mark 'Syntocinon' for their medicine used for female hormones was got registered under the Trade Merchandise Marks Act by the plaintiffs on 12-5-1955. It is continuing to be registered as such. The defendants on their part sought for registration of their product 'Synthocilin' an authentic medicinal preparation under the Act on 2-4-1973, claiming that they have been marketing the same from September, 1972. To this registration, the plaintiffs filed opposition. The Registrar after hearing both the sides ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Himalaya Embroidery Mills Vs. Tarseem Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT249; (1986)ILLJ332Del
Sananda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition challenges the order of the Delhi Administration No. F. 24(240/70-Lab-2l503 dated 23-7-1970whereby the Delhi Administration referred for adjudication to the Labor Court the following term of reference : 'WHETHER the refusal to duties to Shri Tarseem Lal is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'(2) The Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the dispute and framed the following two issues : '1. Whether there exists no industrial dispute between the parties and if so, the reference is bad in law ? 2.As in the term of reference.'(3) As regards issue No. 1 the learned representative of the Management made a statement on 14-9-1971 before the Labour Court that he did not press the objection covered by this issue and, thereforee, the first issue was decided against the management. The Labour Court thereafter dealt with the facts of the case in detail and after considering the e...
Tag this Judgment!integrated Process Automation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT227TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture goods falling under Tariff Items No. 45 and No. 68 of the C.E.T. At the relevant time the products falling under Tariff Item 45 were exempt from Central Excise Duty up to a value of Rs. 5 lakhs under Notification No. 240/77, dated 15-7-1977 and goods falling under Tariff Item 68 were exempt from duty provided, inter alia, the value of the goods cleared did not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs per year under Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977 as amended by Notification No. 246/77. The appellants were under the impression that they need not have the licence of Central Excise until they exceed 80% of the exemption limit of clearance under each of the Tariff Items.There was a declaration filed by them under Notification No. 111/78 on 31-1-1979. Similar declarations were filed by them on 7-4-1980 and 6-4-1981 also. These declarations, inter alia, gave the value of the goods cleared during the preceding financial year in each case.2. When they filed the declaration on...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Administration Vs. Standard Restaurant and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT435; 1985(8)DRJ292
H.C. Goel, J.(1) A sample of ice-cream softy was lifted from the Standard Restaurant situated in Connaught Place, New Delhi on August 26, 1976 by the Food Inspector of the New Delhi Municipal Committee. This sample was got analysed from Shri Jagdish Parshad Sharma, a public analyst of the Union Territory of Delhi. According to his report the sample was adulterated. This ice-cream was manufactured by Caryhom Ice-cream (Regd.) Five persons namely, the Standard Restaurant. Shri Bhagat Ram, the Manager of the Standard Restaurant, Caryhom Ice-cream (Regd.), the manufacturers of the said ice-cream, and Sudhir Chona and Raman Chona, the two partners of Caryhom Ice-cream (Regd.) were prosecuted. A complaint was filed by the Delhi Administration against all these five persons under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). Regarding the question as to whether any charge should be framed against the accused persons it was contended on behalf of the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Harbhajan Dass Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ309
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by Harbhajan Dass challenging his conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment dated 7th May, 1982. He has also challenged the order dated 18th May, 1982, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the offence of criminal misconduct and to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Cede. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in relation to the charge under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default of payment of the fine he was directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently. (2) It is not necessary to notice the prosecution case in detail as it has so been noticed in the judgment under appeal. However, briefly...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parmali Wallace Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT231TriDel
1. The facts of this case, which are not in dispute, as taken from the appeal are set out below :- 1. "M/s. Parmali Wallace Ltd., Bhopal (hereinafter called the respondents) are manufacturers of among other goods, Wood-based Compreg Board and articles thereof falling under Tariff Item 16(B) of Central Excise Tariff, prior to 28-2-1982 the Wood-based Compreg Board and articles thereof were classifiable under the residuary head of he goods not elsewhere specified i.e. Tariff Item 68 of C.E.T. and chargeatble to duty of excise accordingly. The tariff structure of Tariff Item 16B was revised w.e.f. 28-2-1982 vide Finance Bill, 1982, so as to cover the wood-based Compreg Board and articles thereof within its scope. Accordingly the goods viz. Wood-based Compreg Board and articles thereof manufactured by the respondents have become classifiable under the new structured Tariff Item 16B of the C.E.T. w.e.f. 28-2-1982 and liable to duty of excise at the appropriate rate. 1.2. Due to above chang...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]158ITR64(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referring the following questions to this court. They are raised by the assessed, D.C.M. Company Limited, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, and arise out of the consolidated order dated November 28, 1974, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench. They relate to assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Two applications were made by the assessed (938 and 939/74-75) and four by the Income-tax Commissioner (939, 964 to 967 (Delhi) /174-75). The following are the questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums paid by the assessed in the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, to the Indian National Congress and the Swatantra Party, were allowable deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in holding that the two...
Tag this Judgment!