Delhi Court January 1971 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.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Prahlad Rai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi693; [1972]83ITR321(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The following question of law which was originally before a Division Bench of this Court has been referred to the Full Bench :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Estate Duty was liable to be paid on the sum of Rs. 35,824.00as per provisions of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.'(2) The question arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Estate Duty Appeal No. 72 of 1963-64. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The deceased was one Shri Kashmiri Lal who died on 21-10-1961 and the accountable person is his son Shri Prahlad Rai, who will hereafter be referred to as the assessed. On 17-3-1962 a return showing the net estate of the deceased which consisted of moveable assets and immovable properties was filed by the accountable person. It was claimed that the deceased gave gifts to his four minor grand-daughters (daughters of Shri Prahlad Rai) on 26-9-1954 of a sum of Rs. 6,250.00 each. He did so by making transfer entr...
Sanyukta Uppal Vs. Vidya Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1971
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT366
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) Smt. Sanyukta Uppal, appellant, is the landlady while Shri Vidya Parkash, respondent is the tenant. An application under clauses (e), (j) and (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Kent Control Act. 1958, herein nailed 'the Act', was filed by the appellant for the respondent's eviction. (2) On June 4, 1965 when the respondent tenant was not present and had not been served with a notice of that date, an order was passed un.der Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, striking out his defense on the pica that he had failed to comply with an order for discovery of documents. The main case already stood adjourned to September 35, 1965, for the appellant's evidence. All the same ex parle evidence was recorded on June 5, 1965 ; and on June 7, 1965 an eviction order was passed against the respondent-tenant Election was taken out and on June 15,1965 when the Courts were closed for summer vacation, attempt was made to execute the said order, but without succ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›