Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 96 results (0.025 seconds)R.L. Traders Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]158ITR824(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This set of writ petitions is concerned with the validity of notices under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to several years. We had issued a show- cause notice. The case of the petitioner is that there was no material or reasons at all for reopening the assessment for those years. In reply, the case of the Department is that during some other proceedings in Bombay, it was discovered that hing was being sold through commission agents to havala agents at an under invoiced rate. It is alleged that the petitioner had also been selling to these commission agents at an under invoiced rate. This position emerges from the proposal to reopen the assessment. The petitioner submits that this material is too vague and uncertain to connect the petitioner with any under invoicing or alleged concealment of income and, thereforee, there was insufficient material for the Income-tax Officer to have 'reason to believe' that income had escaped as...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Hassan Vs. Abdul Hamid Alias Medo
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ365
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order of eviction dated 4th January, 1983 passed by an Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the respondent falling under Clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act'). (2) The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) read with Section 25B of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he being owner landlord required the demised premises in question as residence for himself and members of his family. He inter alias averred that the premises in question had been let to the petitioner for residential purpose only. After service of summons in the prescribed form the petitioner made an application under Sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Act for leave to defend. It was supported by an affidavit ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Usman Vs. Mohd. Siddiq and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT279; 1986(10)DRJ51
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated September 4, 1976. (2) The appellant Mohd. Usman was admittedly in possession of the premises in dispute bearing municipal No. 1754, GaliMirJumla,LalKuan Bazar, Delhi, as a tenant under the respondents Mohd. Siddiq and Mohd. Salim on a monthly rent of Rs. 23.00 . On October 5, 1967 the respondents made an application to the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 seeking permission to file an application for eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the grounds of non payment of rent, substantial damages to the disputed premises and sub letting. The Competent Authority by its order dated Dec. 11, 1968 granted the permission to institute eviction proceedings against the appellant but only on the ground of non payment of rent. The respondents thereafter made an application for eviction of the appellant under proviso (a) to sub-secti...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1103Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case, is brief, are that the appellants claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 145/74-CE dated 12.10.1974 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production of sugar).They filed a refund claim for Rs. 45,144.45 on 25.8.1975. The Assistant Collector deducted a small amount out of it on account of re-processing loss and sanctioned their claim for Rs. 42,260.00 on 10.11.1975. The appellants took credit of the amount sanctioned in their Personal Ledger Account on 15 11.1975. Subsequently, through their Association etc., they learnt that Madras and Karnataka High Courts had interpreted the aforesaid notification in a different manner which was more beneficial to them. These High Courts had held that the various percentage slabs of concession in the Table annexed to the notification should relate to the excess production of sugar and not to its average production. Thereupon, the appellants submitted a revised claim for Rs. 1,56,898.83 on 2.4.1976 and asked...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Art Printers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1839Tri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts of the case as contained in the Memorandum of Appeal and as stated during the course of the hearing by Shri Sogani are briefly as follows : On 15-1-83, the Appellants entered into a contract with M/s. Induscandia Erikson & Co. AB (hereafter to be called the foreign supplier) for one Roland RZK.-111 Offset Press with standard equipment. The year of manufacture of the said goods was 1975. The c.i.f. value for the Press along with standard equipment was contracted at Rs. 3,19,200/-. In pursuance of this contract, the appellants opened a letter of credit through Syndicate New Delhi on 25-2-83. At the time of opening of the letter of credit, the goods in question were covered by the O.G.L. under the Import Policy for the year 1982-83. In terms of the letter of credit, date of shipment was stipulated as 15-6-83 and date of negotiation of document as 30-6-83. Later on, vide letter dt. 5-5-83, the foreign supplier informed the appellants that due to difficulties, the go...
Tag this Judgment!JainudIn Kabir Bagdadi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT2
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order dt 16th August, 1984, passed under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. In execution of this order of detention he was arrested on 18th August, 1984. Grounds of detention dt. 16th August, 1984, were duly communicated to the petitioner. On 13th September, 1984, a declaration appears to have been made under S. 9(1) of the Act as amended by Act No. 58 of 1984. The information regarding this declaration having been made in regard to the detention of the petitioner was given to the petitioner by a communication dt. 27th November, 1984, purporting to be an addenda to the grounds of detention. This addenda was drawn up on 18th October, 1984. The petitioner, as advised by the grounds of detention earlier served on him, made a representation to the State Government on 20th September, 1984. A...
Tag this Judgment!JainudIn Kabir Bagdadi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1378
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order dt. 16th August, 1984, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. In execution of this order of detention he was arrested on 18th August, 1984. Grounds of detention dt. 16th August, 1984, were duly communicated to the petitioner. On 13th September, 1984, a declaration appears to have been made under Section 9(1) of the Act as amended by Act No. 58 of 1984. The information regarding this declaration having been made in regard to the detention of the petitioner was given to the petitioner by a communication dt. 27th November, 1984, purporting to be an addenda to the grounds of detention. This addenda was drawn up on 18th October, 1984. The petitioner, as advised by the grounds of detention earlier served on him, made a representation to-the State Government on 20th Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Kellner Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT80TriDel
1.The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Patent and Proprietary Medicines falling under T.I. No. 14-E of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978. On 20-9-1979 the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Kanpur visited the factory of the appellants and found that the exemption of first clearances worth Rs. 5 lakhs under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 had been crossed by the appellants on 14-9-1979 during the current financial year. After availing Rs. 4 lakhs worth exemption, the appellants had furnished a declaration to the Central Excise department and had also applied for issue of Central Excise licence. The clearances between Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs were effected on Central Excise gate passes besides factory's own challans and invoices but no records were maintained by them in respect of P and P medicines produ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]159ITR33(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The questions of law sought to be raised in this petition are said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated October 10, 1980. The facts of the case are that the assessed had contested the levy of penal interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer had waived the penal interest for all but one year. When an appeal was taken before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, certain directions were given regarding this penal interest but complete waiver, as sought for by the assessed, was not granted. Then an appeal was taken to the Tribunal which was decided on January 11, 1980. As regards the question of penal interest, there was a specific ground raised by the assessed. At the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was taken regarding this ground by the learned counsel for the Department claiming that the interest order passed under section 215 by the Income-tax Officer was not appealable to the...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar and Sunderlal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT338
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The applicant Sunder Lal and Vinod Kumar, the applicant in another application (No. 1948/84 in Cr. A. 203/1984) before us have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code ., and section 397 Indian Penal Code ., and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first charge, and to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs. 500.00 on the second charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Now both have moved applications for the grant of bail pending the bearing of the appeals. (2) Learned counsel for the applicants have referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court where new light has been thrown on the question of granting bail in the case of persons convicted for murder to life imprisonment. It has been pointed out in Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab, : 1977CriLJ1746 and Babu Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1978CriLJ651 , that the practice of the court refusing bail or suspension of sentence when persons ...
Tag this Judgment!