Delhi Court February 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Continental Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: [1986]15ITD753(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri K. C. Srivastava, Accountant Member - These are cross-appeals, one by the assessed and the other by the department, directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relates to the assessment year 1983-84. Though several grounds have been taken by both the parties, the major ground has been taken by the assessed stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing the claim of the assessed for a deduction of Rs. 89,16,19,198 made under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). We proceed to deal with this ground first.2. The assessed is a civil construction company and according to the details furnished by it, it has execution large number of projects overseas and in India. In India its projects include dams, irrigation and hydle project, water supply and sewerage project, marine and harbor works, air-ports, etc. The overseas projects executed by the assessed included dam and irrigation hydle projects in Libya, fibre board factory at Abu Sukh...
L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC235
1. The captioned seven appeals are transferred (from the Central Government) proceedings within the meaning of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 and are being disposed of as if they were appeals filed before this Tribunal.2. All the appeals involve the same issue and are being, therefore, disposed of by this common order.3. The appellant imported, in several consignments goods described as "diamond compax". According to the manufacturer's literature produced before the lower authorities, the goods are composed of individual crystals of man-made diamond bonded to a tungsten carbide substrate. It appears that the "compax" tool blanks thus obtained are further fabricated by brazing their carbide portion to steel tool blanks or "indexrable (?)" types of inserts. The shapping of the blank to the desired configuration is done with diamond wheels and a rigid grinding machine.4. In a few of the cases, the proceedings were initiated by demand notices issued by the authorities. In others, ...
Umesh Kumar Modi Vs. K.S. Sahni, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle X, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Del)302; [1986]159ITR597(Delhi)
G.R. Luthra, J.1. Two petitions (Criminal Misc. (M) 1269 of 1985, and Criminal Misc. (M) 1269 A of 1985), of Shri Umesh Kumar Modi are being decided by means of this order. Both the petitions are under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the two criminal complaints filed under sections 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, by Shri K. S. Sahni, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle X, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). The complaints were for prosecuting M/s. Modi Industries Ltd.. Modi Nagar, U.P., Shri M. L. Modi, the present petitioner, Shri Umesh Kumar Modi, Shri K. N. Chopra and Shri Dhari Ram Aggarwal for concealment of income and making false statements in the returns of income-tax. This judgment is being written in the file of Criminal Misc. (Main) 1269 of 1985. 2. M/s. Modi Industries Ltd. is a private limited company and is an assessed before the complainant. The sai...
Banwari Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes37; 30(1986)DLT28
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated February 27, 1985 convicting the appellant in respect of commission of an offence of rape with Kumari Sunita punishable under section 376 Indian Penal Code . and an order of even date sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000.00 , in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. (2) The appellant was carrying on business of cloth at shop No. 146 Patparganj, Delhi. The case of the prosecution is as follows : 'ON August 16, 1982 at about 10 am. Kumari Sunita (Public Witness 1) was pausing in front of the shop of the appellant. Kuman Sunita at that time was studying in Nagar Nigam Vidyalya, Patparganj, Delhi. It was on account of recess in the school that she happened to be passing near the shop of the appellant. The appellant called Kumari Sunita inside his shop. He then pulled down the shutter of the shop, untied the string of salw...
inder Singh Malik Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes191; 30(1986)DLT92; 1986(10)DRJ317; 1986RLR244
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this petition Inder Singh malik seeks issuances of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of e Constitution of India for quashing the history sheet opened by the police authorities in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and further quashing of the entry made in the Surveillance Register as per Rule 23.9. (2) Petitioner has averred that he is a youngman of 26 years of age. He has passed his higher-secondary examination and is at present Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, village Masudpur, Delhi. It is his case that the Station House Officer of Police Station Mehrauli respondent No. 4 (herein) has got opened history-sheet illegally and malafide and had the recommendation approved for opening the same and keeping his name on the Surveillance Register from respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner of Police Hauz Khas New Delhi in violation of the provisions of rules in Chapter 23 of the Rules. The respondents have filed an affid...
Prem Nath Vs. Om Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT427
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This petition by the tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, dated March 2, 1985 directing his eviction from the premises in dispute. (2) The dispute is in respect of a portion of property No. 4298, Arya Pura, Subzimandi. Delhi consisting of one room and a verandah in front thereof. The petitioner Prem Nath was in occupation of the said premises as a tenant under the landlord 0m Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs. 11.40. He is admittedly an old tenant. (3) On September 8, 1981 the landlord sought his eviction from the premises in dispute on the allegation that he was the owner of the said premises and the same had been let out for residential purpose. His family consisted of himself, his wife an unmarried son aged 20 years and an unmarried daughter aged 16 years. He was in occupation of one room measuring 16' X 8', a court yard and a kitchen on the first floor and the...
Harbhajan Singh Bhalla (Deceased) Through L/Rs. Vs. Dhara Singh and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC1
S.B. Wad, J.1. The accident took place on 21st July, 1965 near the round about of the Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, in which Jagdish Singh Bhalla was run over by the bus No. USL 3972 belonging to U.P. Roadways. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The contention of the respondents was that the deceased was struck by another vehicle and that the bus in question was not involved in the accident at all. The respondents' version that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident was disproved by the fact that the blood was noticed on the front left wheel of the bus. The Driver of the vehicle was also arrested almost immediately after the accident. After causing the accident the bus had gone about 40 to 45 feet ahead. Four eye witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. Shri Thakur Singh Bhalla (P.W. 10) is the brother of the deceased. He had stated that they were coming on foot from Ajmeri Gate to Kamla Market and that the bus came from behind and ran over the deceased. ...
Grindwell Norton Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC12
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 129-A(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act, for short), is as to whether certain goods described as- all, admittedly, parts of an integrated system for particle size analyzer are assessable to duty at the identical rate as the analyzer itself under Heading No. 90.28(4) read with Heading No. 90.25(i) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter, the Schedule), notwithstanding that each one of them had been separately itemised and priced in the invoice or under Heading No. 90.29(2) under which they were actually assessed. (a) the appellant placed an order for the supply of a "Particle Size Analyzer P.A.-723-124, accessories and spares for the same" as per annexure. The annexure lists a particle size Analyzer with C.M.H.-150 Sensor, Calibrated Bd. 6 mash x-y plotter, 100 sheets plotter paper, 3 plotter pens, Model P.A.-723-124" for a sum of U.S. 120,435.00 as well as- (ix) Minimum spare...
Comet Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT330TriDel
1. All these 11 appeals are against a common order of the Appellate Collector. The facts and circumstances of the appeals are similar. We, therefore, heard them together and decide the same together.2. The appellants are manufacturer of paints etc. falling under Item 14 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They filed a classification list on 1-4-79 effective on the same date. This list contained, among others, two products, namely, "Star Wood Primer White and Pink" and "Indeco N.C. Primer Redoxide". They claimed that these two products (about others there is no dispute) were assessable at concessional rate of duty of 10% under Notification No. 220/77-C.E., dated 15-7-77. The Superintendent approved the classification list on 11-4-79. However, on 28-12-79 the Superintendent issued a show cause notice asking the appellants to show cause why the classification of the said two products should not be amended, making them ineligible to the concessional rate of du...
Santram Vs. Joginder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi575; 1986RLR250
ORDER21, Rule 2, which provides for certification of an adjustment come to out of Court clearly contemplates a stage in the execution proceedings when the matter lies only between the judgmentdebtor and the decree-holder, and when no other interests have come into being. When once a sale has been effected, a third party's interest intervenes, and there is nothing in this rule to suggest that it is to be disregarded. thereforee after a sale is duly held, the Court cannot refuge to confirm the sale on the ground that the decree-holder and judgmentdebtor say that the decree has been satisfied out of Court.'(25) A perusal of the judicial record would show that an application dated 5th February 1979 was made by the decreeholder, respondent No. 1, for recording satisfaction of the decree and the statement of the decree-holder to that effect was recorded on the same date. Subsequently on 2nd March 1979 the learned Sub-Judge passed an order that 'in view of the statement of the parties dated 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »