Delhi Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Pure Ice Cream Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1979
Reported in: [1981]129ITR394(Delhi)
D. R. KHANNA J. - In compliance with the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under s. 256 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that development rebate and depreciation were admissible on plant and machinery on the entire sum of Rs. 92,000 ?'The background of the facts is that the firm, Pure Ice Cream Co., which is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of ice-cream, effected certain constructions in its premises and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,34,999. This expenditure, however, was ultimately brought down to Rs. 92,000 after a settlement with the contractor who had carried out the construction. The assessed claimed that all this expenditure was incurred on cold storage room, platform for machines, observation tower and cooling tower, etc. This was accepted by the ITO at the original assessment sta...
Gurdittamal Vs. Bal Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi216; 17(1980)DLT321; 1980RLR136
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) These are four petitions of the tenants against the orders of the Additional Rent Controller. After a brief adjourn in the division bench these cases have come back for disposal. (2) The common features of these cases are that in each case the landlord brought a petition for eviction of the tenant under the newly introduced procedure of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) on the ground that he required the premises bona fide as a residence for himself and members of the family dependent on him. The tenant was required to apply for leave to contest the application of eviction within 15 days from the date of the service of the summons. The tenant defaulted in making the applications within the said period. The Additional Controller, thereforee, made an order of eviction against the tenant, holding that the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction will be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant. From the order of eviction ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gian Singh Kalsi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR373(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna, J. 1. These two references pertain to the assessments of Gian Singh Kalsi, an individual, for assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63. They have been moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the following circumstances :2. The assessed was the managing director of the Kalsi Tyre Rethreading Factory Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the company '), during the relevant years, having been appointed so by the board of directors on August 25, 1960. This resolution was to the following effect:'It was felt necessary to have a managing director for running the day to day administration of the company. After discussion it was unanimously resolved that Mr. Gian Singh Kalsi be and is hereby appointed as managing director of the company and the question of his remuneration shall be taken up later,'3. The articles of this company also provided that the directors might be allowed any amount either as salary or as commission on net profits or otherwise as was settled by the board of...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Joginder Nath Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1979
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi72
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) By the impugned order the Additional Sessions Judge quashed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 9th February 1978 framing charge against the accused-petitioner under section 7 read With section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and discharged the accused. Dissatisfied with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the State has come in revision.(2) The relevant facts for the decision of the 'petition are that on 29th March 1977 Food Inspector Balwant Singh took a sample of cow's boiled milk from the petitioner. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three equal parts and poured them into three clean and dry bottles and sealed the bottles in accordance with the rules. The Food Inspector sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the Local Health Authority as required by sub-section (C) to section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Public Analyst found the ...
Natraj Stores (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Krishan Lal Kochar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT528
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which he directed that the names of respondents be entered in the register in respect of the shares of the company .(not exceeding 2500) standing in the name of K.S. Mehta, appellant No. 2. This order was passed on a petition under section 155 of the Companies Act moved by the respondents for directions that their names should be placed on the register of members of the company appellant No. 1. (2) Appellant No. 1 is private limited company and appellant No. 2 is the managing director. Appellant No. 2, his wife and son constitute the cover-whelming share-holding of the company. The case of the respondents was that appellant No. 2 had agreed to sell 2500 shares of the company of the face value of Rs. 100.00 each for a total sum of Rs. l,25,000.00 and that the said amount had been paid and received by appellant No. 2, that a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors on 1.8.1977 transferring t...
Vilayatiram Mital Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: 1980RLR312
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) [PETITIONER Constructed a Govt. hospital which was Completed on 25.4.75. Some deductions were made from his running bill, and in last bill of 18-9-76, a sum of Rs. 5171.11 was demanded from him. By letter dt. 5-1-77, he demanded reference, to arbitation, dispute about his claims for Rs. 1,40,000.00 On failue, he applied to Court u/s 20. The defense was that claims were barred by time as these were not made within 90 days as required by clause 25 of the Contract. The Court found this clause some what obnoxious.] It observed. (6) This clause States that if contractor does not demand arbitration within 90 days of receiving information from the Government that the bill is ready for payment, the claim will stand waived. The question that is puzzling is which is the bill and when it is ready for payment. I would understand a case if the date of the bill was fixed by the contract but that is not so. Reference has been made to clause 8 of the contract which shows that a month...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT265; 1980RLR293
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the impugned order of April 19, 1979 of the learned single Judge by which on an application vide Section 20 of the Arbitration Act he directed the arbitration agreement to be placed on the record and further directed that disputes I to 3 mentioned in the letter dated 14th of June 1974 written by the contractor to the bank be referred to the Arbitration. (2) An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent by which the respondent-contractor agreed to built a building for it. The terms and conditions were reproduced in a written agreement. Clause 37 of the agreement provided for settlement of disputes by the arbitration. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent said that the matter be referred to the arbitration. On the refusal of the appellant to agree, the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking that the matters listed in the letter of 14th of June 1974 be re...
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. V.P. Agrawal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi681
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India having agreed with the findings of its Disciplinary Committee with regard to alleged professional misconduct committed by the respondent has referred the matter to this court under sub-secion (5) of Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, as amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act. 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with the recommendation that a reprimand be administered to the respondent.(2) Shri V. K. Jain, proprietor of M, Vee Kay &Co.;, hereinafter referred to as the Complainant filed a complaint against the respondent on October 27, 1976. The complaint, as filed, is Exhibit I on the record. A copy of the complaint was sent to the respondent who refuted the charges. The matter came up before the Council which took the prima facie view that the respondent has committed professional misconduct and so, referred the complaint for enquiry to its Disciplinary Committee. T...
Colgate Palmolive India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
General Auto Parts Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1979
Reported in: [1981]128ITR519(Delhi)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', has referred the following questions 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 payment of Rs. one lakh to the retiring partners did not include revenue expenditure deductible from the income of assessed ? 2. If the reply to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether there was any legal difficulty in allowing the revenue expense as deduction from the income of the assessed ? 3. Whether the claim of the assessed deducting Rs. 51,924 from his income has been disallowed correctly ?' 2. The above questions arise in the following circumstances :The assessed, M/s. General Auto Parts, is a registered firm doing business in automobile parts. The business was previously carried on by four partners, namely. Ram Gopal, Kashmiri Lal, Kanwal Kishore and Krishan Kishore. Kanwal Kishore and Krishan Kishore agreed to retire from the firm with effect from Septem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »