Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 10 of about 96 results (0.022 seconds)Jaipur Traders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD534(Delhi)
1. The various grounds in this appeal by the assessee may be seriatim taken up and disposed of as follows.2. The controversy which arises in ground Nos. 1 to 6 pertains to the nature of surplus realised on sale of a property situate at Sikandrabad. In the return of income filed by the assesses, capital gains of Rs. 3,71,832 had been accounted on sale of the aforementioned property and it was claimed that the capital gains thus derived were liable to be set off against the capital loss determined for the assessment year 1976-77. The ITO did not accept that the sale resulted in capital gains. According to him, it was not the case of realisation of an investment but a case of realisation of profits and gains of business. He also did not accept the quantum of surplus as shown by the assessee which was determined at Rs. 4 lakhs. In appellate proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) dealt with the matter at length in paragraphs 2 to 21 of his order. He duly recorded the necessary facts and t...
Tag this Judgment!Elofic Industries (India) Vs. Steel Bird Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi258; 1987(2)ARBLR29(Delhi)
M. K. Chawala, J. (1) Under the provisions of Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 the Court has the power and the duty.to Stay the plaintiff's suit where the Validity of the registration of the trade mark is questioned by the defendants. Relevant Section 111 reads as under : Section Iii (1) Where in any suit for the infringement of a trade mark, (A)the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark is invalid; or (B)the defendant raises a defense under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of the registration of the defendants' trade mark; the Court trying the suit (hereinafter referred to as the court), shall. IF any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff's or defendant's trade mark are pending before the registrar or the High court stay the suit pending the final disposal of such proceedings;IF no such proceedings are pending and the Court is satisfied that th...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Coton Spining and Waiving Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electricity Supply Unde ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi628
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The dispute regarding the consumption of electricity over and above the sanctioned load by the petitioner, relate back to 5th November, 1979 when the petitioner preferred to file a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act before this Court. Before the respondent undertaking filed the reply, S. N. Kumar, J. vide order dated 22-1-1980 appointed Shri K.L. Vijh, Advocate as the sole arbitrator to enter upon the reference and decide the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties and find incorporated in paragraph 34 of the petition. The said Para reads asunder:' 'that the respondent undertaking has sent another |notice dated 27-10-1979 demanding a sum ef Rs. 40,251.98 which represents load violation charges and excess demand charges. It is submitted hat the demand of the respondent undertaking for payment of 25'% surcharge on the alleged connected load of 7117.55.H.P. is wrong and is not justified as contained in respondent's bill dated 1st Au...
Tag this Judgment!Surjit Kaur and Two ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2384Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri Kashmira Singh, son of Shri Mahain Singh (since dead) had filed an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as the Board) against the adjudication order passed by Collector of Customs, Chandigarh. This appeal was dismissed by the Board by order dated 27-4-1981, as being barred by time, on the ground that the appeal had been received in Board's office on 12-6-1980 whereas the Collector's order was despatched on 20-3-1979; further observing that, although this notice was received back undelivered but, thereafter, a copy of the same was pasted on the door of the house of the appellant Kashmira Singh on 14-5-1979 and, so, taking that to be the date of service, the appeal was liable to dismissal having been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of three months.2. Aggrieved by this rejection of the appeal, Kashmira Singh filed revision petition to the Central Government, which has since been received by this Tribunal to be treated and dispo...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Tika Manjendra Shah
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD433(Delhi)
1. These three appeals by the revenue are directed against the combined order of the AAC cancelling penalties imposed upon the respondent under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') in the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Since identical grounds have been raised by the revenue, we would conveniently consolidate them and dispose them of by a common order.2. The returns of wealth for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 were filed by the assessee on 17-2-1979 resulting in delays of 67, 55 and 43 months respectively. Assessments for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were completed on 12-2-1980 while that of the assessment year 1975-76 was completed on 11-3-1980. Along with the demand notices and the assessment orders for the three assessment years, the assessee had also been served notices under Section 18(2) calling upon him to explain why penalties be not imposed under Section 18(1)(a) for late submission of returns. In response to t...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Bhawani Shanker and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ993
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.1. Eight persons were sent for trial under section 120-B, IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Out of these, one Shanti Lal has died before the trial could be concluded. The case was tried by Shri O.P. Singla, Special Judge and ultimately by his judgment dated 17-7-75 he dismissed the case and acquitted the accused. We have heard arguments in this acquittal appeal against the aforesaid order.2. Respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker at the relevant time was working as Asstt. Controller of Printing in the office of Chief Controller, Printing and Stationery (hereinafter known as C.C.P. & S.) from October 1955 to April 1961 and, outside printing section (hereinafter known as OP section) was under his direct control. Respondent No. 2 B. S. Sharma from January 1958 to September 1961 was employed as supervisor in the same section while respondent No. 3 O.P. Jay and was working as Asstt. from 1952 to the middle of July 1959. It is, however, said th...
Tag this Judgment!