Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 71 results (0.019 seconds)income-tax Officer Vs. Deoki Nandan Om Prakash
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD197(Delhi)
1. This revenue appeal is directed against the order dated 27-5-1983 passed by the AAC, Moradabad, in Appeal No. 25 (Chd.) of 1982-83 reversing the ITO's order passed under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1974-75.2. The ITO in the respondent's case passed an order under Section 185(1) (b) of the Act rejecting the assessee's claim of registration in respect of 1974-75 on the ground that the respondent firm had not filed information about the formation of partnership to its principal and further that information was given to the State Bank of India as late as on 25-5-1975, though the instrument was executed on 26-12-1973 incorporating certain changes.3. In the first appeal against the said order under Section 185(1)(6), the concerned AAC on 18-8-1978 reversed the ITO's order and directed registration by observing that the grounds on which the ITO's order was based was simply irrelevant to the question whether a genuine firm had co...
Tag this Judgment!Facit Asia Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT711TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are licensed manufacturers of typewriters, calculators and adding machines. They also manufacture spare parts for these machines. They submitted their classification and price lists and opted to avail the concession granted under Notification No. 120/75-CE, dated 30-4-1975. According to the appellants the spare parts were available for sale to any person who required the same. The Assistant Collector withdrew the concession accorded under the Notification No.120/75-CE on the ground that the clearances of spare parts were being made only to the distributors. According to him, transactions between the assessee and his distributors were not acceptable for purpose of determining the assessable value under the amended Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On appeal, the Appellate Collector confirmed the findings holding that it would be far...
Tag this Judgment!Gian Chand Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT345
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) To begin with, four persons, namely, Gian Chand appellant, one Jai Chand, Rakesh Kumar and Nairn Ahmed were prosecuted under sections 302/34 and 120B Indian Penal Code and sections 27/54/59 of Indian Arms Act for conspiring and committing death of one Radhey Sham alias Lala on the night of 6th September 1980 at about 9.45 P.M. near Meera Pai Mandir in the area of Govindpuri, Delhi. The deceased Radhey a has Lala as also another Radhey Sham Public Witness 10 were carrying on embroidery business. Deceased Radhey belonged to Chandni Chowk, Delhi. These two persons were known to each other intimately. Sant Lal Public Witness 15 was a property broker in Govindpuri area and was also known to the deceased and Public Witness 10 Radhey Sham. The four accused persons who were put on trial were allegedly working in an embroidery factory. Three of them, namely, Gian Chand, his brother Jai Chand and Naim Ahmed were employees of Kishan Chand Public Witness 2.(2) On 6th Se...
Tag this Judgment!Falcon Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1798Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, M/s. Falcon Tyres Ltd. are manufacturers of tyres and V-belts for motor vehicles. For the purpose of manufacture of these articles, they admittedly purchase cotton fabrics from outside and rubberise the same for further use thereafter in the manufacture of V-belts and tyres. The cotton fabrics so rubberised (and captively consumed) are called "Friction Cloth" by them. The dispute in the present case is whether this Friction Cloth would fall under Tariff Item 16A (2) relating to rubber products as claimed by the appellants or under Tariff Item 19(1)(b) relating to cotton fabrics as held by the lower authorities.2. When the appellants received show cause notices in this regard, they had sent replies and, after adjudication, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mysore, had, under his order dated 14-10-1982, classified the Friction Cloth manufactured by the appellants under Tariff Item 19 (1)(b) and called for payment of duty on that basis.This finding had been co...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmit Kaur Vs. Bhim Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT62
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the wife of the victim Ajmer Singh on her behalf and on behalf of two minor daughters challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 3.8.1972. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition as in its opinion no positive finding as regards the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. U.D. 41863 could be established. The accident took place on 18.1.1968. The present appeal was admitted in 1972. The appeal is on the daily list for the last three days. None is present on behalf of the appellants. The counsel for the Respondents has taken me through the judgment and the evidence. (2) On 18.1.1968 at about 12.45 P.M. Ajmer Singh was going on his bicycle and on the crossing of Willingdon Crescent Road and Sardar Patel Marg he was knocked down by a Military Truck No. U.D. 41863. The bicycle and the truck were going in the same direction. Ajmer Singh died on the spot. He was taken to All India Medical institute where Dr. Jagdish Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Paper and General Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT448TriDel
1. By his impugned Order dated 15-1-1981, the Appellate Collector allowed 3 appeals (Nos. 2383/79, 1281/80 and 352/80) in full. Appeal No. 2~343/79 was only partially allowed. The remaining two appeals 2437/79 and 2407/79 were rejected.2. M/s. Ajanta Paper & General Products, (the appellants before us), filed a single revision application against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the revision was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before it. In accordance with the practice and requirement of the Tribunal, the appellants filed 5 supplementary appeals since, in the first instance only one revision application had been filed though there were six appeals before the lower authorities.3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17-4-1985, Shri S.P.Kampani, Consultant for the appellants stated that the first group of appeal (Nos. 442...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Vitamalt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2109Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Radhika Vitamalt Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the appellants") against Order-in-Original No. 14-COLLR/1984 dated 25-7-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut by which the Collector held that zinc sulphate, manufactured by the appellants, was not a fertilizer falling under Item No. 14-HH of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act (CET, for short) but a micronutrient falling under Item No. 68, CET. The Collector directed the Assistant Collector to work out the actual duty payable by the appellants under Central Excise Rule 9(2) after taking into account all their factories and the exemptions under Item 68. However, he did not impose any penalty under Rule 173-Q on the appellants.2. The charge against the appellants was that they were engaged in the manufacture of zinc sulphate without applying for and obtaining a central excise licence and had manufactured and removed the product valued at Rs. 57,51,67...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi V Vs. Eagle theatres
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]165ITR93(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us for the assessment year 1969-70 is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 99,284 was revenue in nature ?' 2. The facts set out by the Tribunal show that the assessed had purchased two cinema houses, one at New Delhi and one at Bombay. Substantial renovations and additions were made by the assessed to the Plaza Cinema, New Delhi, and this cost about Rs. 30,00,000. A substantial part of this was treated as capital expenditure by the assessed. This was the amount spent on the extension of the auditorium, construction of the new bathrooms and false ceiling and extension of the lobby. Some part of the expense was claimed to be of a revenue nature. Part of this claim was allowed by the Income-tax Officer and the rest was treated as capital expense. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave some further relief. In appeal before the Tribunal, the question was...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Titaghur Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT901TriDel
1. In his Order No. 11/17/3/24/78, dated 9-4-1978 the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Cuttack Division, said that lime, alum, salt cake and sulphamic acid were not used as raw material or component parts in the manufacture of paper and paperboard and therefore, were not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-79 amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta disagreed with the Asstt.Collector and in his Order No. 19/OR/84, dated 25-10-84 directed that the appellants should avail set-off benefit in respect of lime, salt cake, sulphamic acid and alum under the Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-79 provided these inputs and the intermediate products that emerged out of them were not removed outside the factory but fully consumed internally in paper making. We are in agreement with the Appellate Collector and do not think his order needs to be set aside or interfered with.2. Nor dowe agree w...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi453; 1985RLR71
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition filed under sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act. 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed. The petitioner, Smt. Kanta claims to be widow of Sukhdev Singh Sandhu alias S. Sukhdev who died at Delhi on or about first day of March 1979. According to the petitioner, Sukhdev Singh Sandhu left her as his widow, a daughter Ms. Shabnam and mother Smt. Harnam Kaur. (2) Further, as alleged by the petitioner, the deceased left a Will dated 22nd February 1979 in favor of the former and by virtue of that Will, she is entitled to the entire property of the deceased. (3) The petition was filed in February 1983 which was about four years after the death of Sukhdev Singli Sandhu. The Explanationn for delayed filing of the petition, as given in the petition, is that Smt. Shaminder G. Bathra, a sister of the deceased, had been litigating with the petitioner at Ludhiana and Bombay in conne...
Tag this Judgment!