Delhi Court February 1980 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.
Baldev Sahai Bangia Vs. R.C. Bhasin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi145; 17(1980)DLT461; 1980(1)DRJ60; 1980RLR319
Avadh Bihari Rohatgi, J. (1) The short question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the tenant is liable to ejectment under section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(d) in these terms: 'THAT the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing 'of the application for the recovery of possession thereof'. (2) The undisputed facts are these. The premises in question consisting of four rooms are situated in Kalkaji ( 94A and 94B in K Block). The appellant Baldev Sahai took them on rent on May 12, 1961 at the monthly rent of Rs. 95.00 He lived in this home with his father, mother, two sisters and a brother. When he took the premises he was a bachelor. On November 15, 1961, he married. Later on his father died in this house. His one sister was married from this very house. (3) In 1971 the tenant went to Canada. His...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. O.N. Talwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)278; [1980]123ITR80(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. Where the annual Installment of principal and interest payable in respect of an annuity deposit made under Chap. XXII-A of the I.T. Act, 1961, is received by a person other than the one who actually made the deposit, would the whole or any part of the annual Installment received be liable to income-tax That is the question raised in this income-tax reference. 2. Shri O. N. Talwar, the respondent-assessed, was the karta of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) known as O. N Talwar & Sons. The family was disrupted with effect from July 16, 1966, by a partition deed dated July 22, 1966. Thereafter, O. N. Talwar was assessed as am individual for the assessment year 1967-68 and 1968-69 for which the previous years were the financial year 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively. These two assessment years from the subject-matter of the two references now before us. 3. Prior to its disruption, the family had made certain deposits under the Annuity Deposit Scheme formulated in Chap. XXII-...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Vinay Bharat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR128(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. Two questions of law have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax out of income-tax assessments of Shri Vinay Bharat Ram for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. 2. The first question which is common to all the three years arises in the following circumstances : 3.The assessed is one of the directors of the company known as Bharat Ram Charat Ram Pvt. Ltd. In the course of the discharge of his duties he had to undertake air travels frequently. The company took out an accident insurance policy covering the risk of accidents as well as riots and civil commotion in the course of air travel and chartered flights. For effecting this insurance the company paid an insurance premium of Rs. 2,388 in the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1965-66 and a premium of Rs. 1,963 in the two succeeding years. The ITO held that the premia paid by the company in respect of the above insuran...
Mrs. Ethyl Saxena (Decd) (by L.R.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: [1984]146ITR518(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This Income-tax reference arises out of the assessment for 1961-62 (previous year being the financial year 1960-61) of Jagdish Narain Saxena (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed'), who has since died. The question of law referred to this court under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in adding Rs. 1,13,092 to the total income of the assessed in the accounting year ending March 31, 1961 ?' 2. The question arises for consideration in the following circumstances. 3. The assessed was an exporter of hides and skins. During the financial years relevant to the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60, the relationship between the assessed had a National Grindlays Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the bankers') became strained. The assessed had been having an overdraft account with the bank right from 1952. On July 18, 1955, he executed a letter of hypothecation in favor of th...
Lajpat Rai Vs. Usha Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: 1980RLR478
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 26th October, 1977 whereby Shri Ajit Bharihere, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi had dismissed the petitioner-defendant's application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the C.P.C. (2) The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for possession against the present petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner was a legal heir of the deceased Daropadi Devi who had been a tenant under the plaintiff respondents. It was further alleged that the tenancy of the suit premises had been terminated during the life time of Daropadi Devi. The petitioner was in occupation of the suit premises and the suit was filed for possession of the same. (3) The petitioner, during the course of the trial, moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A Civil Procedure Code for permission to lead additional evidence. In the said application petitioner also wanted to amend his written statement, so as to incorporate a preliminary objection said to arise...
Prem Swarup Puri Vs. Delhi Administration and Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi184
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) This is an extradition case. The petitioner Prem Swarup Puri has brought this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He is a citizen of India. When he was standing trial in criminal cases here he fled to France. In 1970 the Government of India requested the French Government for his extradition for prosecuting him for the following three offences: '(I)Falsifications affixed on passport No. A-668077 delivered in New Delhi on 28th August, 1958 and use of this falsified passport; (II)The fraudulent obtaining on June 29, 1965 of a false passport No. 1-282813 by using the false name of Anand Prakash and on July 17, 1965, of a false passport No. 1-282846 under the false identity of K. V. Sridharan of. Delhi; (III)The fraudulent obtaining from the Regional Passport Office in New Delhi of a passport delivered on 3rd May, 1967 under No. 1-454020 by using the false name of Ravi Batra and the 'use of this false passport.' The offences disclosed in Nos. (...
C.H. Bansi Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT384; 1980RLR281
Charanjeet Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner herein, Ch. Bensi Lal, lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi, on the allegations that two persons had forcibly entered his house to steal certain papers. A case under Sections 452/380, Indian Penal Code, was accordingly registered. After investigation the police-officer sought cancellation of the said case. It appears that the Court was requested to file a complaint against the petitioner herein under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had lodged a false report to the police. The learned -Magistrate, Mr. Brijesh Kumar, while cancelling the case declined to proceed against the petitioner and passed the following order : 'As per request of the police the case is cancelled. However, I hold that as there is no specific accusation against any specific person as such I do not agree with the prosecution to file a complaint under Section 211. Moreover, the perusal of the prosec...
Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1980
Reported in: [1980]123ITR404(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, raises an interesting question. The assessed, M/s. Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd., is a transport operator. The assessment year is 1961-62. The previous year being the year which ended on March 31, 1961. 2. The assessed for purposes of its transport business maintained a fleet of twenty buses. Fifteen buses were maintained against twelve permits for running buses on regular routes. The other five buses were maintained for being run on contract basis on temporary permits such as for marriages, private tours and the like. Out of these five buses, one bus was never used and it had been taken off from the road. The other four buses bearing DLP Nos. 2208, 2288, 2720 and 2726 were not actually employed by the assessed for more than 30 days on account of the lack of demand thereforee. The assessed's case, that these buses had been earmarked for contract purposes and were always ready and in a fit condition to ply on...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1980
Reported in: [1980]124ITR251(Delhi); [1981]6TAXMAN387(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. The question as to how far certain funds can be held to constitute 'reserves' has assumed great importance in the context of certain legislations by which the revenue attempted to syphon off, by way of tax, a portion of the profits earned by a business over and above a particular standard of return on the funds invested in the business. 2. To start with, there was the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, which is not relevant for our present purposes. Then there was the Business Profits Tax Act (Act 21 of 1947). By this Act, the taxable profits from a business during a chargeable accounting period were computed and to the extent they exceeded an amount calculated at 6% on the capital employed in the business on the first day of the said period, they were subjected to a tax. For the purposes of the Act, the capital in the case of a company was defined to represent the sum of the amounts of 'its paid up share capital and of its reserves in so far as they have not been allo...
Rani Lila Bhargava and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1980
Reported in: [1983]141ITR836(Delhi)
Sachar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge dated July 28, 1972, by which the suit was dismissed (since reported in : [1973]92ITR312(Delhi) ). 2. This is the plaintiffs' filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,29,640.98 against the respondent Union of India. The claim related to the interest on refund for the income-tax and E.P. Tax paid by the applicant for the assessment of 1946-47 (A.Y.). The tax liability was created on the appellant and he ultimately paid the tax on March 27, 1957. The appellant had, however, taken up the matter in appeal to the Income-Tax Tribunal and then to the High Court. The reference was answered in favor of the assessed/appellant on April 7, 1966, with a direct by the High Court to refund the excess tax. A consequential order by the Tribunal was passed on September 16, 1966, with a direction by the High Court to refund the excess tax. A consequential order by the Tribunal was passed on September 16, 1966, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »