Delhi Court May 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 4 of about 68 results (0.019 seconds)Pee Raj International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)18ITD201(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 6-9-1984 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.2. In the appeal, there are as many as eight grounds. The first ground relates to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') but this ground was not pressed for determination on merits at the time of hearing. This, therefore, goes out of our consideration. The remaining grounds deal with only one issue and that can be summed up as under : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the difference between the purchase consideration and sale price of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 amounting to Rs. 31,500 is income accruing and arising from an adventure in the nature of trade and as such, taxable as business income of the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82.3. The relevant facts, which require consideration, lie in a narrow compass and we bring them into focus first.4. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Parkash Aggarwal Vs. Vishambhar Dutt Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes60; 30(1986)DLT21; 1986(11)DRJ121
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This reference under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been made by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi to this Court for taking appropriate proceedings.(2) Shri Vishambhar Dutt Sharma filed an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate Shri Jai Parkash Aggarwal to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The election petition had reached the stage of final arguments. In the issue dated 13-8-1985 of Jansatta and 14-8-1985 of Punjab Kesari, almost similar news items were published. The sum and. substance of the said news item was to the following effect :- 'That it had been learnt that Mr. Jai Parkash Aggarwal had met the- Hon'ble Minister of State for Law Mr. Hans Raj Bhardwaj and had requested him to get transferred the Presiding Officer of this Court but the matter reached the ear of Hon'ble Cabinet Minister of Law Mr. Asoke Sen and it is stated that Mr Sen held out that in case any interference was made in the Judiciary then he ...
Tag this Judgment!Flower Tobacco Company Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR121(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT158
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This order shall also govern Crl. M(M) 535 of 1986. (2) The parties to the dispute-Flower Tabacco Company (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant) and Mottahadesh Brothers (hereiufter to be referred as the accused)-are engaged inthe business of manufacturing and sale of tobacco for Hukkah. The dispute is in respect of a trade mark 'ABBU DALLA/device of a pot represented in a special and in a particular manner' and copyright in artistic work namely printing on the container used for packing tobacco, with distinctive features of Abbu Dalla having an alleged unique colour combination, lay out and arrangement. (3) On February 27, 1986 the complainant filed a complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade & Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 and Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, against the accused and unknown persons. The complainant claimed that it bad adopted the said trade mark in the year 1972 in relation to its goods and had used the trade mark con...
Tag this Judgment!Tyre Corporation of India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC5
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant, in whom the undertaking as well as the right, title and interest of M/s. Inchek Tyres Ltd. in such undertaking had vested with effect from 14.2.1984, in terms of the provisions of the Inchek Tyres Ltd. and National Rubber Manufacturers Ltd. Nationalisation Act, 1984 (No. 17 of 1984), can be made liable for any excise duty not paid by M/s. Inchek Tyres, admittedly, prior to the said date.2. The facts, in a brief compass, leading to the instant appeal are: (a) a notice dated 6.5.1985 was issued to the appellant - (i) alleging inter alia contravention of Rules 173C, 173F, 9(1) and Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rules; (ii) the contravention alleged was in respect of 1,885 pieces of tyres which were despatched by goods train under M.C. Note in terms of a contract with the DGS&D. Accordingly, freight was not payable by the aforesaid M/s. Inchek Tyres Ltd. Nevert...
Tag this Judgment!Holiday Inn Inc. Vs. Kapoor Holiday Inn
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi563
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Holiday Inn Inc., 3742, Lamar Avenue. Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A. is the plaintiff in Suit No. 16261 1983 and Suit No. 1627/1983. Though the defendants in both the suits represent two different establishments, running hotel lodgings but as the cause of action for filing of the suit and the relief claimed is almost similar, learned counsel for the parties agreed that both the suits can conveniently be disposed of on the evidence to be recorded in Suit No. 1626/1983. Vide order dated 29-8-1985 passed in Suit No. 1627/1983 both the suits were consolidated and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in the earlier suit which shall be read as evidence in the second suit as well. For the purpose of deciding the controversy in the two suits, the facts of Suit No. 1626/1983 are being taken up.(2) The plaintiff is a U.S. Corporation incorporated under the laws of the Slate of Tennessee, U.S.A. Shri V. Sagar and Shri J. Sagar are the plaintiff's constituted attorneys authorised...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Chand Talwar Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)19ITD288(Delhi)
1. These are cross appeals, by the assessee and the revenue. The assessee is in appeal for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74 while the revenue is in appeal for the assessment years 1971-72, 1974-75 and 1975-76.The issue involved in all the seven years under appeal is common, viz., levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act')- The facts of the case as also the reasoning of the learned lower authorities and the stand of the parties being common and the learned first appellate authority having disposed of all the appeals by a common order and more so, a common paper book having been placed on our file also, as of compulsion and for the sake of convenience, we are disposing of all the appeals by this common order.2. The following table will give the background facts :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment Due date for Dates on which Penalty Effect of the orderyear filin...
Tag this Judgment!Anandji Haridas and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC121; 1987(12)LC770(Delhi); 1986(26)ELT224(Del)
1. This judgment will also dispose of civil writ petition No. 407A of 1972 as the common question involved in both these petitions is whether the respondents were legally justified in rejecting the applications for refund on the ground of limitation. 2. The petitioner is a private Ltd. Co. registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It manufactures various products from iron & steel and other materials imported from abroad as well as from indigenous materials available in India. On or around 31st March, 1965, the petitioner imported certain Tin Mill Black Rejects Waste/Waste and Coil ends. The said goods arrived in Bombay on 6th May, 1965 and were cleared by the Customs on 4th June, 1965. The Customs Authorities levied duty by treating the goods imported by the petitioners as per item 63(20)(a) 2(ii) but recovered higher duty as became clear subsequently. At the time when the duty was levied, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the Authorities had correctly levied th...
Tag this Judgment!SachIn Gupta and ors. Vs. B.S. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi76
Sultan Singh, J.(1) Sachin Gupta (Plaintiff No. 1) is the son, Miss Reema Gupta (Plaintiff No. 2) is the daughter and Smt. Sushma Gupta (Plaintiff No. 3) is the wife of Shri B. S. Gupta, defendant. The plaintiffs claim partition and rendition of accounts, with respect to the following two properties : (A)Two flats on first and second floors of Raghunath Sadan Building at 7B, Netaji Subhash Marg, Delhi. (B)One Self-Financing Scheme Dda Flat No. 320 Hauz Khas, 'New Delhi, consisting of three rooms with amenities and garage. (2) The plaintiffs allege that the said two properties are ancestral properties which fell to the shares of parties by virtue of the petition decree dated 28th April, 1972 in Suit No. 40 of 1972 Atma Swarup and others vs. Anand Swarup and others decided by this court, that the defendant is the Karta and the Manager and has been looking after the Joint Hindu Family properties since 28th April, 1972 when the decree in the partition suit was passed. The plaintiffs do no...
Tag this Judgment!Anoop Kumar Vs. Delhi (Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2102; 1986(3)Crimes113; 1986(11)DRJ110
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) Anoop Kumar son of Sagar Mal resident of G-3/86, Model Town, Delhi has been detained by virtue of an order dated 10-10-85 passed by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation and conservation of foreign exchange and also preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods viz. gold and foreign currency. The detention and continued detention has been challenged by Smt. Narbada Devi, the mother of the detenu by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on diverse grounds.(2) According to the grounds of detention, acting on a specified information, a watch was kept on the passengers disembarked from domestic flight No. lC 185 from Bombay at Delhi Airport, New Delhi on 7.9-1984. Sarvshri Gopal son of Sarwan Kumar arrived by the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Debabrate Das Vs. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2085
ORDERM.K. Chawla, J.1. Most of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are not in dispute. The detenu is the Managing Director of M/s. Sea Transportation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. having its head office at Nariman Point, Bombay. The officers of the Directorate, of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay received a secret/reliable information that the petitioner is maintaining a secret account in London and Germany and a part of the commission earned by him is being credited in his accounts abroad. It also came to their knowledge that the petitioner has brought huge amount of foreign currency for selling the same in the local market. On the basis of the said information the residential as well as office premises of the petitioner were raided on 22-8-1985 and a number of documents and the foreign currency was taken into possession by means of four panchnamas. On the next day he was produced before the Magistrate and was released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of...
Tag this Judgment!