Delhi Court January 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
G.N. Dalmia Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi Iii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Del)258; [1986]161ITR688(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These are two applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the assessed pertaining to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and seek reference of the same six questions said to be questions of law for the two years. The questions are as follows : '1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that it is implicit that what is shown by the applicant in the wealth-tax returns will be accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer if it is higher than the valuation of the property arrived at by the application of the said rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules Whether the Tribunal is right in holding a principle that value cannot be less than returned and returned value to be a minimum value below which assessment of value cannot be made, rather than an estimate of fair market value 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in indirectly binding the lower authorities not to determine the value of the property below the figure given in the return 3. Without prejudice to...
Sri Ram Manchanda Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR218(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT294
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.2. The Petitioner, a contractor who works in the name of Vishal Construction Company was awarded the work of widening and extension of an arch bridge including dismantling of the existing arch bridge at km. 5.96 near Delhi Shahdara Railway Station in connection with construction of Shahdara-Saharanpur Broad Gauge Line (SSBL) Project. This way by letter dated 30th January, 1984 of the Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and the work was to be completed within a period of six months. The work was not completed in spite of extensions granted by the respondent. It is alleged by the respondent that the work was abandoned by the contractor and ultimately a notice terminating the contract was issued. The contractor, however, lays the blame for non-completion of the work on the respondent.3. The contract contained the usual arbitration clause, it being Clause No. 64 of the General Cond...
Rajesh Monga Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT16; 1986RLR158
G.C. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner, Rajesh Monga has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of his defend on made under Section 3(1) .read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange .and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the 'Act'.) by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi with a' view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods,' The order was mad'e on August 16, 1985. It was served on the petitioner on October 7, 1985 when he was detained.(2) He was served with the grounds of detention on October 10, 1985. These are in narrative form and run into 29 pages. The main ground is the incriminating statement of Sunil Kumar Sood who arrived at the Delhi Airport from Hongkong on August 20, 1984. He declared the contents of his baggage and was assessed to the duty accordingly. The search of his bag- gage, however, revealed excess and concealed goods of the value of Rs. 56,050. His state...
Agya Kaur and ors. Vs. M.C.D. (Now D.T.C.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: I(1986)ACC252; 29(1986)DLT187
S.B. Wad, J.1. F.A.O. 20 of 1974 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi on 17-9-1973. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 29,100/- as compensation. The claimants are claiming it to be raised to Rs. 2,00,00/- The D. T. C. on the other hand has filed a cross appeal being No. F.A.O.9 of 1974 challenging the entire award and denying their liability.2. The accident took place on 13-2-1996 on the road going along the side and in front of the Red Fort. Shri Gurcharan Singh, deceased , was traveling as a pillion passenger on scooter No. DLZ 7215 driven by Shri Surinder Paul Singh. The bus No. DLP 305 belonging to the D.T.C. come from behind from the same direction and hit Gurcharan Singh. According to Dr. Vishnu Kumar, who conducted the postmortem, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from laceration of lungs, livers and kidneys The deceased had suffered multiple injuries, and as a result of the said injuries, Gu...
Re Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC221Tri(Delhi)
1. The two appeals, both instituted directly before the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), arise out of an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta, on 22.9.1983. The Collector (Appeals), by means of the impugned order, partly upheld contention of the assessee as to entitlement to duty-exemption for a specified period prior to 1.3.1973 and directed that the show cause .notice, issued by Assistant Collector, in so far as it affected the clearances made during the period from 1.4.1970 to 28.2.1973 were concerned, was liable to be withdrawn, and the demand for recovery of the amount of refund given to the assessee was ordered to be modified accordingly. However, clearances effected during the period subsequent to 1.3.1973 were held to be assessable to the rate of duty as stipulated by Notification No. 67/73 dated 1.3.1973 and, thus, duty on goods cleared during 1.3.1973 to 19.7.19...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)(24)ELT28TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Meerut has filed these two appeals against the order dated 28-6-84 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi, which are disposed of by this common order as they relate to the same issue. The respondent in this case M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills are engaged in the reduction of molasses falling under Item 15CC of the Central Excise Tariff. The department alleged that the respondents removed 15,995.71 qtls, 14,870.92 qtls, 21,605.73 qtls of molasses during March to June 1983 involving excise duty of Rs. 58,987.94 without payment of duty in violation of Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules. This duty was demanded as a result of adjudication order under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The allegations were denied by the respondents before the Assistant Collector. According to them, there was overflow of the storage tanks and leakages and, therefore, loss of molasses took place. They were also unable to remove the goods according to their convenience...
Secals Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC43
1. Appellants have filed this appeal against order dated 24-4-84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. By the said order the Collector demanded differential duty from the appellants in respect of Bastalloys B & C Rs. 3,25,464.52 for the period six months prior to 3-8-1979 to 31-10-1982 and for contravention of various provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and rules made thereunder imposed penalty of Rs. 250.2. The proceedings against the appellants are outcome of search dated 22-10-82 by Excise preventive unit, Madras, in the administrative offices of the appellants. The appellants in the factory had been manufacturing stainless steel alloy castings from 1-10-74 and were licensed under Tariff Hem 22AA. During search the preventive officers of Excise on examining the appellants' invoices found that between September 1977 and October 1982 the appellants had manufactured and cleared Hastelloys B & C 14586.045 Kgs valued at Rs, 44,98,144.04. On these g...
Mahavir Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)(28)ELT85TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 24-11-1982. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The appellants carry on business mainly of making stainless steel utensils in their factory at Chembur. The raw materials are purchased from various dealers, including MMTC of India and got re-rolled on job work basis to required guage for the manufacture of stainless steel utensils. The goods became excisable after the introduction of the residuary Tariff Item No. 68 during 1975. Since the products were covered by Exemption Notification No. l76/77-CE dated 18-6-1977 the same position continued. The appellants stated that the goods manufactured by them or on their behalf during the preceding financial year did not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs as set out in the Notification. On 16-7-1977 the Range Superintendent wrote to the appellants to produce all their accounts to determine the eligibility for the exemption. The appellants furnished the...
Risk Capital Foundation Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD486(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 2-2-1985 passed by the Commissioner, Delhi IV, New Delhi under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1980-81. The primary contention is against the finding and decision under the revisionary powers that the assessee foundation did not fall within the ambit of charitable purposes, as defined in Section 2(75) of the Act and, therefore, was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act as a charitable institution. The action of the learned Commissioner in computing the business income at Rs. 1,08,973 is also challenged in the alternative, and denial of depreciation amounting to Rs. 17,398 is further contested.2. In the assessment order dated 23-3-1983 framed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the ITO, Trust Circle V, New Delhi the facts stated are that the asscssee-society was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at registration No. S/7466 of ...
Nanney Khan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ208
(1) The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the accused - will be entitled to the benefit of exception under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. We may notice the law on the subject which is very clear. The legal conception of insanity differs considerably from the medical conception. It is not every form of sanity or madness that is recognised by law as a sufficient excuse. The best law on the subject we may notice is embodied in the case of Daniel Me Maghten. The learned Judges in that case inter-alia laid down as under : 'EVERY man is to be presumed to be same and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their jury's satisfaction, and that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »