Delhi Court October 1979 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.
Lal Chand Khanna Vs. Dr. Parmod Kumar Sood and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi142; 17(1980)DLT234; 1980(1)DRJ11
H.L. Anand, J.1. This is a tenant's petition under proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 assailing the order of eviction. The principal question that it raised was as to the liability of the tenant to eviction merely on the ground that the premises at present available to owners, though otherwise sufficient for their requirements having regard to the extent of the accommodation and of the family, was nevertheless insufficient, because on account of strained relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, a separate unit in the premises could not be provided for a branch of the family. Certain subsequent event have to an extent changed the context in which the order was made and have thrown up an additional problem as to their effect and the course to be followed in the changed circumstances.2. The property, in which the premises in dispute is situated is jointly owned by the mother, principal of a government school and her two sons ...
K.C. Raja Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR911(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) M/S. K. C. Raj & Co. is a partnership concern having four partners. In the partnership deed it was recited that three of the partners, namely, Prern Nath, Bal Kishan and Kishan Lal, had entered into partnership in representative capacities of their respective Hindu Undivided Families. They held the status of Kartas in those families. The firm allowed various amounts as diaries to these partners for the services rendered by them to the partnership as working partners. They claimed that they were being paid the salaries in their individual capacities, and not as Karta of their Hindu Undivided Families. (2) The Income-tax authorities, however, disallowed the deductions of those salary amounts in the hand of the firm for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62. Reference in this regard was made to Section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act. 1922 which prohibited allowance of any expenditure by way of interest, salary, commission or remuneration paid by a firm to any partner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›