Delhi Court November 1979 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1979 Page 2 of about 42 results (0.016 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalyan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]133ITR465(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The reference arises out of the proceedings for the levy of a penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, in the case of Kalyan Singh of Delhi.2. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessed was served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The return of income in compliance with the notice should have been filed on or before November 11, 1960. But it was actually filed only on December 21, 1962, i. e., after a delay of 25 months.3. For the assessment year 1961-62, the return in response to the notice under Section 22(2) was due to be filed on or before April 20, 1962. It was however, filed only on December 29, 1962, i. e., after a delay of 8 months.4. The assessments for both the years were completed by the ITO on March 30, 1963, under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sardar Amarjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]132ITR365(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The reference relates to assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62.2. The assessments of the respondent Sardar Amarjit Singh, for the above two assessment years were completed by the ITO on 30th November, 1963. It may be mentioned here that the return for the assessment year 1960-61 had been filed on November 2, 1962, and that for the assessment year 1961-62 on March 8, 1963. The assessments having been completed after April 1, 1962, the ITO took proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) for the delay in the filing of the returns. After considering the assessed's Explanationn, he imposed on the assessed penalties of Rs. 3,276 and Rs. 2,328, respectively, for the two years. This was levied by him at 2% of the tax payable for every month of default as provided in Section 271(1)(a). These penalties were confirmed by the AAC.3. The assessed preferred further appeals to the Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dayal Vs. Liberty Finance (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas529(Delhi); 18(1980)DLT51
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge directing the public examination of the appellant Managing Director of the Company in pursuance of the application moved under Section 478 of the Companies Act by the Official Liquidator of the company against which winding up order has been passed on 13.2.1967. The dates and the period it has been taken to pass final order are indeed for distressing and a point to ponder about the delays, calling for urgent steps if system is to maintain its credibility. (2) On 28.7.1970 the Official Liquidator filed a report under Section 455(1) of the Companies Act being C. P. 74-D/66 which he brought to the notice of the Company Judge together with the observations of the auditor. In the report the Official Liquidator has mentioned that payments were made and not accounted in the books of accounts, over payments and double payments were made to the parties, preferential payments to creditors were made af(er the o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Anand Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980RLR39
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) By this application the appellants assert that no decree need be prepared by this court while deciding an appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). Impatient of court procedure they say : 'Why frame a decree in appeal. Do as the court of the District Judge does. A judgment is enough.' Now in all appeals under s. 54 decided by this court decrees are prepared. It is said that this is not required in law. The argument is that as in the case of the district court, so in the case of the appellate court, the decision amounts to a decree as is provided in s. 26 of the Act. This is the point that arises for decision on this application.(2) S. 26 appears in part Iii of the Act which is headed as 'Reference to Court and procedure thereon.' An important section of this part is S. 18. That provides for reference to the court. 'Court' means a principal civil court of original jurisdiction [S. 3(d)]. The court of district judge is the principal civi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Charan Dass Khanna and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]123ITR194(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. The assessed, namely, the Hindu undivided family known as Charan Dass Khanna & Sons, was, in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, constituted of Smt. Krishan Piari Khanna, her four sons, viz., Raj Krishan Khanna, Bal Krishan Khanna, Ram Krishan Khanna & Jai Krishan Khanna and their families. This family had been operating business in spectacles and frames.2. On November 2, 1961, each of the four sons of Smt. Krishan Piari Khanna withdrew Rs. 6,250 from the business accounts of the family by cheques. These amounts were invested by them as their share capital in the partnership business which they started under the name and style of M/s. Modern Optical and Surgical Industries, near Ghaziabad. The firm also obtained a site belonging to the HUF on a yearly rent of Rs. 1,500 and set up the factory where manufacture of optical goods and steel furnitures was started.3. In the balance-sheet dated March 31, 1963, of the HUF, which was signed by R. K. Khanna, t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jasbir Singh @ Billa and
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT404; ILR1979Delhi571
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Kuljeet Singh @ Ranga and Jasbir- Singh @ Billa have been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death for having committed the murder of Gee'a and Sanjay. Both of them have also been convicted under sections 365/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code; under sections 366/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under section 376 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count as well as the second, and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the third count. Jasbir Singh @ Billa has also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Ranga and Billa have filed separate appeals against their convictions and sentences. The trial court has also submitted the proceedings to the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Malik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]124ITR522(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 3,83,996 written off in the account of the assessed with the company could be treated as income under Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under Section 2(6C)(iii) of the Act of 1922 (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income is chargeable to tax for the assessment year 19.57-58, as falling within the previous year relevant thereto '2. The reference arises out of proceedings for assessment to income-tax of Sri K.S. Malik, New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1957-58. 3. Sri K. S. Malik (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessed ') was one of the governing directors of M/s. Phelps & Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafterreferred to as 'the company'). The company was owned...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi270; 1980RLR10
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) This appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge dt. 22.10.68, was brought by eight appellants. They seek enhancement of compensation for their land acquired by the respondent Union of India. During the pendency of the appeal Sis Ram appellant No. 5 died. An application by his legal representative was made. I dismissed that application on 16.10.79 on the ground that the application was not made within the time limited by law under rule 4(3) read with rall 0.22 of C.PC. thereforee, the inevitable result is that in so far as Sis Ram appellant No. 5 is concerned the order of the Adj has become final. (2) A preliminary objection has been raised that the whole appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed in its entirety. The question to be determined is about the effect of death of appellant No. 5 on the rest of the appeal. In order to answer this question it is necessary to ascertain the nature of the claim and the relief sought. (3) Bhart Singh (decea...
Tag this Judgment!Lila Wanti Vs. C.P. Prabhakar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT259; 1980RLR465
O.N. Vohra, J.(1) This is a reference under Section 10 read with Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. (2) Briefly, the facts are that Lilawati, owner-landlady of house bearing No. F-8, Rajauri Garden) New Delhi, acting through Mohan Lal Gulati, General Attorney, in collaboration with C.P. Prabhakar made an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act) 1958 to the Rent Controller, Delhi. It came up before Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Rent Controller Delhi, on June 3, 1971. Mohan Lal Gulati swore that the premises were not required by the landlady for a period of 5 years and the wanted to create limited tenancy for a period of 5 years and that she would require the premises for her personal need on the expiry of that period. C.P. Prabhakar endorsed the request made on behalf of the landlady saying that he required the premises for residence and would have no objection to vacate the same o...
Tag this Judgment!Avtar Krishan Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]133ITR338(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The following questions have been referred for our decision under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the assessed from filing the appeals within time ?' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not admitting the appeals and in dismissing the same as barred by time ?' 2. It is necessary to state a few facts. The assessment years are 1955-56 and 1957-58. On December 21, 1966, the IAC passed orders under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, imposing penalties of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 4,000, repectively, on the assessed for the above two assessment years. At the end of his order, the IAC directed the ITO to issue necessary demand notices and challans and collect the amount of penalty. In pursuance of the order of the IAC, the ITO issued notices of demand...
Tag this Judgment!