Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Mediratta Engineering Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR327(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessed-firm manufactured lathe chucks at Bahadurgarh. In the course of the examination of accounts for the year 1964-65, the ITO found that a sum of Rs. 24,000 had been debited in the books of the assessed on November 4, 1963, towards the purchase of Nickel. In support of this entry a kuccha chit alleged to have been singed by a kabari was produced before the ITO. The ITO could not believe, that an ordinary kabari could have Nickel worth Rs. 24,000 for sale in lot. So, he called upon the assessed to produce the supplier. The assessed, however, wrote back to the ITO on March 12, 1965, stating : 'The purchase bill as well as the stamped receipt voucher in respect of 2,400 kgs. nickel purchase from Shri Chetan Kabaria has already been submitted to you in original. We can produce the consumption record of the factory in support of the purchase. Unfortunately since we do not have complete address of the perso...
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Phool Chand Jiwan Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: [1981]131ITR37(Delhi)
1. This is a reference under s. 66(2) Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The question referred is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 77,181 on the ground that the amount in question did not represent remission on account of a trading liability, within the meaning of section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The reference arises out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant previous year being 1956-57, in the case of the firm, M/s. Phool Chand Jiwan Ram. The firm carries on, inter alia, a business in the purchase and sale of cotton piece-goods. In the books of the firm there was an account in the name of M/s. Janki Dass Banarsi Das, Delhi. According to the entries in this account, the assessed-firm owed M/s. Janki Dass Banarsi Dass a sum of Rs. 1,13,828. On April 1, 1956, the above account was squared up. The balance of Rs. 1,13,828 was transferred t...
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Bhardwaj and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT283
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The respondents are registered as architects under the Architects Act, 1972 and practice assuch in the Union Territory of Delhi. They filed two writ petitionschallenging the power of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to imposerestrictions on their right to practice as architects. The restrictionsand the basis on which the restriction was imposed may be describedas below.Section 2(25) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957D (the Act) is as below : 'LICENSEDarchitect', 'licensed draughtsman' licensed engineer'.licensed plumber', licensed surveyor' and licensed townplanner' mean respectively a person licensed under theprovisions of this Act as an architect, draughtsman,engineer, plumber, surveyor and town planner'.Since the definition of section 2(25) contemplates that a licensedarchitect or a licensed draughtsman is to be a person who is licensedunder the provisions of the Act as an architect or a draughtsman, it isnecessary to know the provisions which empowe...
Sardari Lal JaIn Vs. Amar Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT5
J.D. Jain, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) succinctly are that the appellant Sardari Lal Jain is a tenant under the respondent/ landlord with respect to one room (garage on the backside) on the ground floor of property bearing No. 56-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi with amenities of a common bath-room on the second floor and latrine on the 3rd floor thereof. As far back as May, 1970 the respondent instituted eviction procredings against the appellant, being suit (E. 340/70) on the grounds embodied in clauses (e), (d) & (h) of the proviso to Sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act. It was averred that the premises in dispute had been let out to the appellant for residential purposes only but the same were being used by him for commercial purposes, that he had acquired another residence at 4, U.A.,Jawah 2. The Additional Rent Controller vide his order dated 6.10.1972 directed eviction of the appellant unde...
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS435D; 1981(8)ELT804(Del)
Dalip K. Kapur, J.1. The subject matter of the present writ petition is practically the same as was the subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 411 of 1977 decided on 8.2.1978 by a Division Bench of this Court and reported as M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. The Board of Central Excise & Customs 1978 E.L.T. (J 127)1978 E.L.T. (J 127) I.L.R. (1978) II Delhi 352. 2. In the aforesaid cited case the notification No. 198/76 dated 16th June, 1976 was interpreted by the Court to hold that the 25 per cent exemption from payment of excise duty on tyres and tubes which had been granted subject to certain conditions could not be altered by a Press note and trade notices dated 19.2.1976 and 9.3.1977 whereby the exemption had been made subject to the conditions that the benefit is passed on to the consumer. 3. A similar matter was dealt with in the case of Strawberry Products and another v. Union of India and another decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.3.1980 (C.W. 741 of 1979) and in another...
State Vs. Jitender Chopra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT137; 1980RLR615
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) is for cancellation of bail of Jitender Chopra and Man Mohan Chopra respondents granted to them on 1st September, 1979 by Shri N.C. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. According to the prosecution respondents had committed an offence of murder by causing the death of Smt. Kanchan Chopra by burning punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.(2) Smt. Kanchan Ghopra was daughter of Shri Madan Lal Bedi. She was employed as a Stenographer in the office of Union Public Service Commission. She was married to Jitender Chopra respondent on February 9, 1978. Out of the wed-lock a child was born. Respondent No. 2 Man Mohan Ghopra is father of Jitender and father-in-law of Kanchan deceased. (3) Relations between Jitender and Kanchan were strained. The version of the prosecution is that both the respondents were dowry hungry and that on account of ever unsa...
Tayub Jamal and Company Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT568
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal had obtained a license for the import of the odolite. On 27th May, 1961 indents were placed on the foreign exporter, M/s Kovo through their agents in India, M/s Manohar Lal & Company. The indents were for 250 pieces of the odolites. The consignments were received in two lots. The first lot of 125 pieces was received and cleared. In May, 1962 the second lot of 125 pieces was received but was not cleared. The clearance was refused because according to the Customs Authorities the consignment had been undervalued. (2) It appears that the Customs Authorities carried out search in the premises of M/s Manohar Lal & Company on 5th May, 1962. In respect of the first consignment of 125 pieces which had been cleared proceedings were initiated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Proceedings were also initiated with regard to the second consignment. On 19th June, 1964 two orders were passed...
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS434D
ORDERD.K. Kapur, J.1. On considering the facts of the present petition which is concerned with refund for the period 8th February, 1978 to 31st March, 1978, we find that practically the same point has been decided in favor of the petitioner in Civil Writ No. 501 of 1978, decided on 2nd November 1978 Cen-Cus/225D, by Chadha J. By that petitioner's application for refund for an earlier period was directed to be disposed of in accordance with the notification No. 198/76 dated 16th June, 1976 without taking into account the Press Note dated 19th February, 1977 and Trade Notice dated 9th March, 1977. The present petition is concerned with a subsequent period. Learned Counsel states that a demand has been made but there is no refusal as such and in a sense the matter is still pending. But, as a long period has gone by, we should make a direction as it is practically conceded that all the other cases are of a similar type as the present one, and are covered by the Judgment of this Court in Mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›