Delhi Court April 1980 Judgments
Avtar Singh Sandhu Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR531(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging by way of petitions under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the legality and validity of notices issued by the WTO, respondent No. 1, under s. 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (to be referred to in brief as 'the Act'). These seven notices pertaining to assessment years 1968-69 to 1974-75 were all issued on 25th August, 1975, and served on the petitioner on 2nd September, 1975. 2. Since the point involved is the same, we propose to deal with all the seven writ petitions by a common judgment and order. The facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 1264 of 1975 are being set out. 3. The petitioner, an individual, is being assessed to wealth-tax since the assessment year 1957-58. He filed his return for the assessment year 1968-69 and indicated his net wealth at Rs. 5,77,408. This figure included the value of two immovable properties, one situated at 18, Tilak Marg (earlier known as 18, Harding Avenue). New Delhi, and the other at C-Block,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Sen Khosla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Del)303; [1982]137ITR667(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This reference under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, related to the assessment year 1961-62, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1961. During the above previous year the assessed, Bhim Sen Khosla, received a sum of Rs. 30,819 by way of interest on U. P. Zamindari Abolition Bonds held by him. The interest was payable annually but there was some litigation and, thereforee, the interest was not paid from year to year, but eight installments were paid together in the year which ended on March 31,1961. The assessed claimed that only the eighth installments which became due to him on July 1, 1960, could be included for assessment in the assessment year 1961-62 and that the earlier installments could not be so included. This contention was, however, rejected by the ITO, by the AAC and by the Appellate Tribunal, and hence this reference at the instance of the assessed. 2. One more fact that remains to be mentioned, as some emphasis has been laid upon it, is that when t...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Karunakaran Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi896; [1981]127ITR136(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting and a some-what difficult question regarding the extent of exemption available under the I.T. Act, 1961, to a Government servant in respect of a lump sum received by him (on his deemed retirement from service due to his absorption into a public sector undertaking) in place of the payments which he would have been entitled to receive had he retired from the Government service in the normal course. 2. On general principles, the receipt of a lump sum be an employee on the commutation of the pension payments which he would otherwise be entitled to receive would be in the nature of a capital receipt (except, perhaps, where the pension is in the nature of a deferred remuneration). This general rule stood abrogated by the very comprehensive definition of 'profits in lieu of salary' contained in Expln. 2 to s. 7(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. However, it appears that the Legislature did not then intend to bring commuted pension to tax, ...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Sikand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Del)307; [1980]126ITR202(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. These two matters have been referred to us at the instance of the assessed under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (to be referred to in brief as 'the Act'). 2. The point in issue in both these income-tax references is the same, though the questions have been worded differently. 3. The three questions referred for our opinion in Income-tax References No. 83 of 1972 are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any proceedings for imposition of penalty could be taken for a default, if any in not furnishing the return under section 139(1) in the assessment proceedings under section 139(2) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, onus to establish that failure to furnish the return was without (sic) reasonable cause within the meaning of section 271(1)(a), has been rightly placed by the Tribunal upon the assessed (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has correctly interpreted ...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Diplomat Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR781(Delhi)
1. Though two income-tax references have been registered in this matter, there is only one reference pertaining to the assessment year 1963-64. 2. The reference arises out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1963-64, of M/s. Hotel Diplomat, New Delhi, a firm consisting of four partners, Madan Lamba, Jagdish Lamba, Harish Lamba and Kailash Lamba sharing the profits of the firm equally. The four partners were also the co-owners of a building situate at Sardar Patel Road, New Delhi. 3. By a lease deed dated November 30, 1962, the co-owners purported to lease the above building to the firm. This lease deed was said to record the terms and conditions of the tenancy which had commenced on November 25, 1962, in pursuance of which the firm had been in possession of the premises as a tenant of the co-owners on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000. Among other things the lease deed permitted the firm to use the aforesaid house leased to it for the purposes of running the business of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Faqir Chand Gupta Vs. Tanwar Finance Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT482
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 is by the Auction Purchaser against the Judgment and order dated February 28, 1979 of the Company Judge declaring auction sale of the property in execution of money decree as invalid and void because it was held without leave of the Court. (2) M/S. Tanwar Finance Private Limited a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act) in a meeting held on 16th November, a special resolution that the company be wound up voluntarily and appointed Ch. Ram Singh son of Ch. Bhanwar Singh as liquidator. Prior to the passing of this resolution Kanwar Ram Chander had filed a suit against the said company for recovery of Rs. 13.000.00 which was decreed on 6th November, 1967, and on 15th July, 1968 he got attached the land belonging to the company, measuring 22 Bighas, 8 bids was bearing Khasra No. 31 and 410/28 situated at Azadpur, Delhi. The executing court by order dated 6th September, 1968 d...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajinder Kumar Somani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi991; [1980]125ITR756(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and relates to the assessmentyear 1959-60. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income-taxand the respondent assessed is Rajender Kumar Somani. The questions of law which have been referred to us for decision are as follows: (1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty proceedings had not been initiated correctly and therebycancelling the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 ? (2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that proceedings for the imposition of penalty under Section 273 had not been validly initiated and thus cancelling thepenalty levied under Section 273 of the Income-tax Act.1961.(2) The facts leading to the reference may be briefly stated. Forthe assessment year 1959-60 the assessed should have filed an estimate under Section 18A of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1487
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) Bhagwan Singh who was a Corporal in Indian Air Force and was residing at New Willingdon Camp, Race Course, New Delhi was convicted on August 30, 1979 by Shri P. L. Singla, Addl Sessions Judge, Delhi, in respect of commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced on September 1, 1979 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and for two years respectively. He was further convicted in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the three sentences were directed to run concurrently. The present appeal was filed by Bhagwan Singh through jail. At his request he was not produced in Court and Shri B. R. Prashar, Advocate was appointed as amices curies. I heard Shri B. R. Prashar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri V. K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the State.(2) Criminal procee...
Tag this Judgment!Leela Wati Vs. Ganga Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi209; 18(1980)DLT94; 1980(1)DRJ54
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a revision under S. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, intituled by the petitioner to challenge the eviction order passed by Shrimati Manju Goel, 4th Additional Rent Controller Delhi under S. 14(l)(e) of the said Act. The facts of the case show that the respondent mentioned in the eviction application had applied for leave to defend under deprocedure prescribed by S. 25B within the time mentioned in the summons, but leave to defend was refused on two grounds.(2) Firstly, the application was accompanied by the short affidavit stat ing 'that the contents of the accompanying application for leave to defend of paras 1 to 5 are true to my knowledge and the same may be read as part of this affidavit', but the learned Additional Rent Controller thought that the paragraphs themselves must be reproduced in the affidavit. Secondly even on the merits and the facts stated in the application, the learned 4th Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that n...
Tag this Judgment!D.L.F. Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1980
Reported in: [1983]142ITR347(Delhi)
Ranganathan J.1. M/s. D. L. F. Housing and Contraction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed') is challenging by this writ petition the validity of a notice dated January 22, 1969, issued by the second respondent under s. 147(a) read with s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. For the assessment year 1960-61 the assessment of the petitioner-company was completed by the ITO on March 30, 1965, on a total income of Rs. 5,04,449. Before completing the above assessment the ITO issued a letter to the assessed on March 6, 1965, inter alia, seeking certain clarifications in regard to the purchase of a large tract of land by the assessed-company from one Pt. Lila Ram. It is not necessary to refer to the details of this transaction. It is sufficient to say that according to the assessed it had originally entered into an agreement to purchase this land from Pt. Lila Ram at a rate of Rs. 1,025 per bigha. But this agreement of purchase had been entered into by the assessed jointly with a fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »