Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 10 of about 108 results (0.016 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Devidayal Aluminium Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2430Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appellant, Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, through this appeal to the Tribunal challenges the legality, correctness and propriety of Order-in-Appeal dated 6-2-84 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. By the said order the Collector (Appeals) held that the respondent's product Aluminium Gas Tan-door falling under Tariff Item 68 of CET is utensil of aluminium and thus exempt under Notification No. 244/77, dated 15-7-1977. He allowed the respondent's appeal with consequential relief.2. At the hearing of the appeal Shri S.C. Rohatgi, JDR, argued that according to ISI Specification I.S. 1960 (Pt. 1) 1967 for Aluminium utensils, the utensils are generally those which are pressed or spun from one piece, The Specification gives illustrations Katori, Thali, Parat, Degchi and the like and Tandoor as the utensil is not mentioned in the ISI specification. He also submitted that in common parlance utensil is an item of simple design used for common purposes. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Dayal Didwania Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Del)253; [1986]160ITR12(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This petition and the connected petitions which are similar have been heard after the issue of a show-cause notice. The first prayer in the petition is to direct the Settlement Commission to proceed expeditiously with the application moved by the petitioners under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The second prayer seeks a direction to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras, not to proceed with the case. The counter-affidavit and documents filed with the counter-affidavit as well as the contentions on behalf of the respondents have disclosed why there is a delay by the Settlement Commission. Section 245D of the Act contemplates a report being received from the Commissioner on the basis of which the Settlement Commission can decide whether to proceed with the application or reject the same. In these cases, a supplementary application appears to have been made by the petitioners on the basis of which a second report was called for from the Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Lamba Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]157ITR266(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These two references can be disposed of by a common judgment. They relate to the assessments for the assessment year 1963-64 of two persons, Kailash Lamba and Madan Lal Lamba. The question referred in both the cases is identical and reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly upheld direct assessment of the assessed's share from an association of persons without the association itself having been assessed to tax ?' 2. The facts out of which the question arises are the same in both the cases and can be briefly stated. The assessed was a member of an association of persons consisting of four persons, namely, Madan Lal Lamba, Kailash Lamba, Harish Lamba and Jagdish Lamba. They ran a guest house at 9, Kitchenar Road, New Delhi, during the period November 15, 1961, to April 30, 1962, for the delegates to the World Council of Churches at New Delhi. It is common ground that the four persons formed an association...
Tag this Judgment!Raju @ Kalu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR483
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The appellant has been convicted of offences under Section 304 Part-1 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 30th July 1984. He has also been convicted of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for two years on the third count. However, all the sentences have been made to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence. (2) Succinctly the prosecution case is that the appellant and his elder brother Vinod Kumar were sent up for trial on charges under Sections 302/307/34 IPC. The appellant was further prosecuted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution version as embodied in the Fir lodged by Smt. Bimla (PW4) was that on 20th July 1982 at about 10 P.M. Vinod Kumar elder ...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram Harnand Rai Vs. Om Parkash
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT301
G.C. Jain, J.(1) On December 12, 1967 the appellant, Firm M/s Paras Ram Harnand Rai, brought a suit seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent 0m Prakash not to enter the temple and quarter, part of property No. 7796, Katra Dina Nath, Goenka Road, Subzimandi, Delhi, consisting of several residential quarters and a private temple and put the appellant in possession of the same. It was averred that the appellant was the owner of the property in suit. The respondent had been permitted to perform daily Puja in the temple as a licensee. For discharging the said duties he had been allowed to reside in quarter, private No. 11, as a licensee. The respondent failed to perform the Puja in the temple honestly and faithfully. His license was terminated and he was asked not to enter the said temple and the quarter, but he had refused to comply the said demand. (2) The suit was contested by the respondent on various pleas. The main contentions raised were : (1) the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Dye Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT914TriDel
1. The appellants, M/s. Moti Dye Works are processors of man-made fabrics. They had been availing themselves of exemption under Notification No. 79/82, dated 28-2-1982 on the ground that the processes of bleaching and dyeing were being carried on by them with the aid of machines but without aid of power. They were accordingly paying duty at the reduced rates. Later, Show Cause Notice dated 30-4-1983 was issued to them pointing out that the process of hydro-extraction was carried on with the aid of power and they were, therefore, not entitled to exemption under the notification above noted. On adjudication the Assistant Collector held that hydro-extraction was not a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. But later under proceedings under Section 35E(4) of the Act the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and restored the demands issued by the Range Superintendent. It is against the said order that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.B. Bhargava Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD244(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 1969-70.2. The assessee is an individual and enjoys income as an eye specialist. The original assessment in this case was completed on a total income of Rs. 7,783 on 15-1-1970. The assessee at the time of filing the said return did not disclose capital gain.3. Subsequently, the ITO found that the assessee was having half share in a house situated at Khatauli. It was sold on 19-7-1968 for Rs. 15,000. There was capital gain of Rs. 4,400 on the sale of this property. Accordingly, the ITO issued notice under Section 147(a)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In pursuance of the service of the notice the assessee filed the return on 7-1-1980. Even in this return capital gain was not disclosed. The ITO after hearing the assessee added capital, gain in the hands of the assessee and reassessment was done accordingly. At the time of completing the reassessment the ITO started penalty proceedings under Section 271(1...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Dass Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi607
ORDER1. The petitioner Devi Dass was detained by an order dt. June 30, 1984 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA). Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on January 14, 1985. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention dt. June 30, 1984 on January 18, 1985 along with documents as per the two lists of documents, Annexures B and C to the writ petition. The order of detention states that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is satisfied with regard to the petitioner Devi Dass that with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods, namely, wrist watches, it is necessary to make the following order :- 'Now, thereforee, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(i) and (ii) read with S. 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the A...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985]156ITR179(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The Tribunal has made a reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, regarding two questions for our opinion. Those two questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 8,19,495 was not a causal receipt exempt under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to Indian business amounting to Rs. 5,16,795 having been allowed as set off against the Pakistan income of Rs. 11,85,892 in the assessment year 1965-66 and the order allowing the set-off having become final, it could not be carried forward and allowed as a set-off against the Indian income for the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. The assessed company has its head office at Delhi and branches at Delhi, Kanpur and Bombay, and also a branch at Lyallpur in Pakistan. the company was manufacturing veg...
Tag this Judgment!Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Cs) Ltd. Vs. Prem Kumar Khullar and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT159; 1986(10)DRJ64
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the order dated August 19, 1980 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal. By the impugned order made under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') the appellant, M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (CS) Ltd., was Prem Kumar Khullar & Ors. directed to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1000.00 per month with effect from December 1, 1977 up-to-date within one month of the order and also to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of each following month. (2) The respondent No. 1, Prem Kumar Khullar, brought an application for eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute, namely, property No. E-38, Panchshila Park, New Delhi. The eviction was claimed under clauses (a)and(b)of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The appellant resisted the application and pleaded, inter alia, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!