Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 96 results (0.030 seconds)Abdul Majid Paramjit Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD27a(Delhi)
1. Even though a number of grounds have been raised in this appeal by the assessee-firm, the objections are three-fold and these are to the effect (I) that the terminal tax of Rs. 56,910 (Rs. 53,549 collected in the assessment year 1969-70 and Rs. 3,361 collected in the assessment year 1970-71) being integral part of the trading receipts could at the best be assessed as income of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 and not in the assessment year 1973-74 ; (2) that there had been no remission of liability on the passing of the order of the Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, dated 19-7-1971 ; and (3) that since the liability of the terminal tax was never allowed as a deduction in the earlier years, the question of invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and assessing the terminal tax collections in the assessment year 1973-74 did not arise. Apart from highlighting these objections, Shri G.R. Agnihotri, the learned authorised counsel of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Urmilla Bansi Dhar Foundation Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]159ITR100(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J. 1. The reference petition before us under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act claims that a question of law arises regarding the assessed not being a charitable institution because it runs an activity for profit. The facts of the case are that Shri Ram Education Foundation had settled a business on trust with the Urmilla Bansi Dhar Foundation with the direction that the income should be used for charitable purposes. From this, it is clear that a business asset was entrusted to trustees for utilisation of the income for charitable purpose. The trust deed relating to the assessed foundation specifically provided that the income should be used for charitable purposes but not for running a business for profit. This meant that the income could not be used for running a business for profit. This type of a case is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association : [1980]121ITR1(SC) . This judgment was followed by the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Loomba Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ126
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner was working as Meter Reader with the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, New Delhi when he was served with a Memorandum No. BC-250/76-Vig /11 H.P.M. dated 28th August, 1976 issued by the Deputy General Manager of respondent No. 2 Along with the statement of charges alleging negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to give his Explanationn which he did and thereafter respondent No. 2 appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the said charge-sheet. For some reason the Inquiry could not be completed, however, respondent No. 2 on 19th August, 1977 issued a show cause notice why the proposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 39,614.63 may not be made against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation and reply to the show cause notice and contended that since the inquiry was not completed and the Inquiry Officer had not given a report, the proposed penalty cannot be imposed against him. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Charan Singh and
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR519
J.D. Jain, J. (1) [ONE Charan Singh was driving a Bus. Traffic Police asked for his license. On failure he was produced before Spl M.M. who u/s 3/112 fined him Rs. 100.00. He filed revision before Add. S.J. pleading that his license had been taken by Police in an earlier challan and showed its receipt to the Police who ignored it and produced him before Spl. M.M. and that in view of the said receipt he could not be punished. That on another occasion there were 75 passengers in his Bus and he was intercepted and produced before Spl. M.M. who without affording him defen c opportunity hastily fined him Rs. 150.00 u/s 123 & R. 4. 38, He later learnt that punishment was also for non-possession of Regn. Certificate and that this was wrong in as much as he had Regn. Certificate and showed the same to Police. He filed revision against this also pleading that his Bus was authorised to carry 75 persons. Abdul Rashid was driving Mini Bus with 68 persons against sanctioned capacity of 35. He was p...
Tag this Judgment!Castrol Ltd. Vs. Vimla Lumba
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ188
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Notwithstanding the sympathetic attitude which is, at times, shown to the tenants in cases of eviction from residential premises, this is one of those cases which shows gross mala fides on the part of a tenant, who happens to be a multi-national company. It is a case of battle between David and Goliath, Goliath being the multi-national company which is a tenant and David being the widow who is the landlady. (2) The trouble of the respondent-landlady commenced when she let out the premises in question, namely, first floor of House No. 202. Golf Links, New Delhi to the Multi-National Company, namely, the petitioner. At the time when the premises were let out to the petitioner, the respondent was residing as a tenant in a house at I-B Mathura Road, New Delhi. An eviction petition was filed against her on 12th May, 1971. While this eviction petition was pending, on 12th April, 1972 the ground floor of the house in question was let out to one Shri S.C. Jain. (3) On 5th F...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilizer Corporation of India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1898Tri(Delhi)
1. In his Order No, 12/14H/79/Collector 2/79, dated 21-7-1979 the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar observed- However, their contention that the quantity of oxygen consumed in their gasification plant are also covered by the exemption Notification No. 145/71, dated 26-7-1971 as amended is doubtful. In Item 4 of the table annexed to this notification it is indicated that the Government exempted oxygen from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon if it is used in the manufacture of fertilizer falling under Item 14 HH of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act. As per statistics furnished by them they started consuming oxygen in their gasification plant from the month of April 1978 but the production of fertilizer in the factory has not yet started even today (July 79). In other words the Talcher Fertilizer Plant has been consuming oxygen in their gasification plant for the last more than one year without producing any fertilizer. Since the cond...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Raidang Tea and Samdang Tea
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC648Tri(Delhi)
1. These Appeals by the Revenue were all heard together on a question common to all of them, namely, the question of the condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. (a) aggrieved by a composite Order in Appeal by the Collector (Appeals) on 29-6-1983, disposing of Appeal Nos. 117-167/ASM/83, and communicated to him on 23-8-1983, the Applicant filed one Single Appeal in the Tribunal on or about 28-10-83. That Appeal was registered as Appeal No. ED(SB)2326/83-D ; (b) the Registry of this Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant, by letter dated 6-2-84, that separate Appeals corresponding to the number of Appeals disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) and desired to be appealed against have to be filed; (c) citing the Order of the West Regional Bench of this Tribunal in the case reported in 1983 ETR 345 (Unique Pharmaceutical v. Collector of Customs, Bombay) in support, the Applicant submitted by letter dated 27-2-1984, that it was difficult in the prevailing circumstances, to file a plu...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1543Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to this Tribunal the same is being treated as an appeal. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8th August, 1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. By the said order the learned Appellate Collector upheld the order dated 14.3.1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under which he ordered enhancement of the c.i.f. price of the goods imported by the appellants from US $ 1150 to US $ 1250 per metric tonne.2. At the outset the learned consultant for the appellants invited our attention to the order passed by the Assistant Collector. He pointed out that the order of the Assistant Collector states that the indent in the present case was placed in August, 1979 and thereafter has proceeded to compare the ruling price at the relevant time with the price of the imported goods. However, the indent of the appellants in the present case is dated 24.12.1979. According t...
Tag this Judgment!Balani and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(0)LC716Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally referred as a Revision Application before the Central Government, on transfer to the Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an Appeal. The appeal is directed against order dated 20th January, 1979, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. Shri Krishnamurthy, learned Consultant for the Appellants has briefly narrated the facts of the case. In this case the importation originally was by the State Trading Corporation thereinafter referred to as the Corporation) who are a canalizing agency for the various goods. The Corporation sold the said goods on the high seas to M/s.Takandas H. Kataria. After a lapse of several months, the Custom House issued a notice of demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Corporation calling upon them to pay duty allegedly short-levied amounting to Rs. 31,199.23. A copy of this notice was forwarded by the Custom House to the Appellants in their capacity as Custom House Agents. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Vinar Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1831Tri(Delhi)
1. All the three appeals were originally filed as revision applications and on transfer to the Tribunal are being dealt with as appeals. These appeals are being considered together as they involve common points and are preferred by the same appellant.2. These revision applications were against the common order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (Orders No. 36 to 38, dated 30.1.78. We heard on 11.3.85 the appellants in appeal No. 1528/ 8O-Dand-1529/84-D. Appeal No. 357/80-D could not be taken up for hearing that day along with the two other appeals since the relevant Order-in Original had not been filed till then. The appellants had agreed to file the said Order-in-Original and other necessary records if any and at that time to indicate whether they wanted a separate hearing for that appeal or whether they would like it to be decided on the basis of the arguments advanced in the other two appeals.Subsequently, the appellants have filed the Order-in-Original and a co...
Tag this Judgment!