Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 108 results (0.021 seconds)Government Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT462TriDel
1. On a preliminary objection on behalf of the Respondent, to the effect that the Appeal herein was not duly signed and filed in terms of R. 213(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, we heard elaborate arguments from either side. In the view that the objection may sustain and by way of abundant caution, the Applicant had also filed on 8-1-1985- (a) an application under R. 11 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1982, for leave "to amend the Memorandum of Appeal by permitting the Appellant company to now file the accompanying memorandum of appeal duly signed and verified by the appellant together with a similarly signed stay application" or to allow the Managing Director of the appellant to sign and verify all the four sets of the appeal and stay petitions as originally filed within time on 14-6-1984 ; (b) an application for condonation of delay, in filing the fresh Memorandum of Appeal, aforesaid, in terms of S. 35B (5) of the Central Excises and Salt...
Tag this Judgment!Wandleside National Conductor Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1825Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally a Revision Application to Government of India against order in appeal dated 23-4-1981, passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, is whether copper strips, falling under Tariff Item No. 26A of Central Excise Tariff, after insulation, should be subjected to duty again under Tariff Item No. 68 ibid.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) restricted the demand against the appellants to a period of six months but, on merits, found against the appellants. Aggrieved appellants filed revision application to Government of India which is now the appeal before us.3. We have heard Shri Ravinder Narain, Advocate, for the appellants, and Shri H.L. Verma, Sr. D.R. with Shri S.C. Rohtagi, Jr. D.R., for the respondent, Shri Ravinder Narain relied on Bombay High Court decision in Shakti Insulated Wires (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1982 (10) E.L.T. 10 (Bom.) and the Tribunal decision in M/s. Devi Dayal Non-...
Tag this Judgment!Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC147Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal is the liability of continuous Ice-cream freezer (Item No. 1 of the bill of entry) to additional duty (CV duty)-hereinafter called CV duty-under Tariff Item No. 29-A(1) of the CET and the classifica-tion for the purpose of customs duty of Items 3, 4 and 5 of the bill of entry, namely, Can filler, Fruit feeder and Ripple machine, whether they should be on merits as done by the Customs or under Heading 84.15(1) like continuous ice-cream freezer, as claimed by the appellants.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, by his order dated 12-11-81 rejected the appellants' claim for re-assessment and refund.The order was upheld in appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay by his order dated 31-1-83. Hence the present Appeal.3. The appellants, besides the bill of entry, have filed copies of invoice, import licence and literature with photos pertaining to the products.4. Taking up first the question of CV duty on continuous Ice-cream Fr...
Tag this Judgment!South Asia Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Del)267; [1985]155ITR392(Delhi)
Kapur J. 1. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1959-60. The reference made to this court is under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the questions referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 23,58,304 was rightly disallowed as a capital loss (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 9,120 incurred on account of Commission of Inquiry expenses was allowable as revenue expenses (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 25,229 on account of expenses of the Law Department was allowable as a deduction against the assessed's profits ?' 2. The statement of case submitted to this court covers a lot of extra grounds because it is concerned with a number of questions which have not been referred. It is convenient, thereforee, first to deal with the last two questions as they are already covered by a reported judgment. In the assessed's own c...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1971CriLJ554A
Malik Sharief Ud Din, J. 1. Shri T. S. Oberoi, Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life by separate orders dated 14th August 1981 and 17th August 1981, last being the quantum of sentence. The appellant has made a grievance against his conviction and sentence. 2. To begin with, the incident is dated 3rd April, 1980 and has taken place at 5.30 a.m. Place of incident B Servant's Quarter No. A-6, JPN Hospital, New Delhi. It is two-room tenement with a common bathroom. The deceased is one Krishna Devi wife of the appellant, Roshan Lal. They were married in June 1979. On the relevant date the deceased along with her husband (appellant) were admittedly living in one of these rooms while the other room was admittedly under the occupancy of a tenant, namely, one Rajan. The deceased had returned to her husband's quarter (in) the company of her mother on 2nd April, 1980 afternoon after having spent about 25 days in the house of her parents. F.I.R. i...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Hamdard Dawakhana ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Del)107; [1986]157ITR639(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. These are six references (Nos. 40 to 45 of 1976) before this court made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which have been referred by a common statement of case. The assessment years involved are 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the wakf deed dated August 28, 1948, read with the declaration dated September 6, 1950, the whole or any part of the one eighth of the annual income of the wakf transferred to the reserve fund was exempt from tax under section 11(1)(a) or (b) read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 49/64ths share of the income of the wakf allocated to qaumi account was exempt from tax under the provision of section 11(1)(a) or (b) read with section 2(15) ...
Tag this Judgment!Usborn Lewis Vs. Phylis Jordan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi72; 1986RLR175
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Single Judge dated 12. 8. 85 whereby the Single Judge remanded the case back to the Adj for a fresh decision and refused to exercise power u/s 8 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as (the'Act') and also without disposing of the main appeal on merits. (2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant and respondent 1 being Christians were married according to Roman Catholic rites at St. Thomas Church, Calcutta on 26.11.49. A female child was born out of this wed-lock on25.l2.56. Since the appellant got a job at Delhi, the Appellant Along with respondent 1 shifted to Delhi in 1967. However, sometimes in 1974 respondent 1 returned to Calcutta and refused to come back to Delhi. The appellant persuaded her to come back but without any success. The appellant, thereforee, filed a petition for judicial separation in the court of Adj, Delhi in 1979. Though notice was sent to respondent 1...
Tag this Judgment!Net Ram Vs. Beant Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT318
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against order of eviction passed by an Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner on 5th March 1981 under clause (e) of proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) On 21st December 1978 the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner who is admittedly in occupation as a tenant of a portion comprising two rooms with common user of courtyard, bath and latrine, with other occupants of the premises bearing No. 84, Bharat Nagar (Mathura Road), New Delhi, under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25-B of the Act. He averred that he was the owner of the premises in question and he required the same bonafide for residence of himself and other members of his family, and that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. He explained that be was residing at house No. 44, Church Road, Jangpura (Bhogal) New Delhi but the accommodation there was not sufficien...
Tag this Judgment!Parkash Kaur and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC272
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the' Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The accident took place on 23.11.1966. Iqbal Singh, the deceased, was going on a cycle at Alipur Road from Khyber Pass side. When he reached the round about of Rajpur Road and Alipur Road, he was hit from behind by the D.T.U. (now D.T.C.) bus No. DLP 16. He was removed to Irwin Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 24.11.1966. The claimants had claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The claimants are widow, a son and a daughter.2. Dr. Vishnu Kumar, PW 6 who conducted the postmortem has described serious external injuries. He has also stated that the internal examination revealed that ribs 1 to 9 on the right side were fractured with blood fusion around and superficial laceration of right lung. He also found fissured fracture in the left temporal bone. According to him death was due to intracranial haemorrhage and fracture of scalp conquest to inju...
Tag this Judgment!Bajranglal Saboo Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD368(Delhi)
1. The accountable person is aggrieved of the order dated 22-11-1983 of the Appellate Controller, New Delhi.2. Shri Bajranglal Saboo expired on 18-9-1980. He constituted an HUF consisting of himself and his wife. After the death of Shri Saboo, as aforesaid, the accountable person declared before the Assistant Controller, inter alia, half share of the deceased in the HUF. However, the learned Assistant Controller took the view that since the wife had no right to ask for partition, the whole of the amount had to be considered in the hands of the deceased.3. In appeal, the order was confirmed by the learned Appellate Controller. He held that the deceased's wife had no share in the joint family property which belonged exclusively to the deceased.4. In further appeal, before us, Shri Balram Sangal reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the accountable person before the Appellate Controller. He also relied upon the following decisions : Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Ma...
Tag this Judgment!