Delhi Court August 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 4 of about 36 results (0.028 seconds)indira Ramchandani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT387
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three letter patent appeals preferred by Kumari Indira Ramchandani, Smt. Parkash Gupta and Kumari Nirmala Ramchandani. (2) Originally the three appellants and another lady Smt. Adarsh Bala Sharma had filed four Writ Petitions challenging the termination of their respective services under sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temporary Service Rules). As the facts and allegations by and large were common in all the four petitions, the learned single judge of this court heard the matter together and disposed them of by a common Judgment. The learned judge discharged the rules and dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved by the said Judgment the three appellants have filed separate appeals before me. Smt. Adarsh Bala Sharma has filed no appeal. (3) All the three appellants had claimed that they had passed the examination had obtained diploma of Vidya Vinodini of Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Bharat Development P. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]135ITR456(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These are two references by the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The respondent assessed in I.T.R. No. 34/70 is Bharat Development Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura, and the assessed in I.T.R. No. 42/71 is M/s. Manav Sahyog Pvt.Ltd., Rajpura. The former reference relates to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, for which the relevant previous years ended on October 31, 1959, and October 31, 1960, respectively. In the case of the letter reference the assessment year is 1958-59, for which the previous year ended on January 31, 1958. The question arising for consideration is similar in both the two references by a common judgment. 2. The question of law referred to us for decision in the case of Bharat Development Pvt. Ltd. is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surplus of Rs. 2,01,445 and Rs. 33,397 in the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas337(Delhi); ILR1980Delhi1232
Prakash Narain, A.C.J.1. The two questions of some importance which arise for determination in this case are :'(a) Whether the policy of the Government for the time being is synonymous with public policy as contemplated by a statute and (b) Whether administrative or executive guidelines can fetter the specific provisions of a statute; or, in other words, whether the working of a provision of a statute can be controlled by administrative or executive guidelines.' 2. The first petitioner, Mahindra & Mahindra, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It was originally incorporated as a private company, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It became a public limited company later on and by any standard is a public company of good standing and has had commendable growth. Its total income for the financial year 1975-76 was Rs. 61 crores, for 1976-77 Rs. 69 crores, for 1977-78, Rs. 102 crores and for 1978-79 Rs. 143 crores. Its profit after tax for the fin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi978
Leila Seth, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, these four references, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act'), have been referred to us for our opinion. They pertain to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. 2. The common question of law framed in these references is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by reference to the capital employed in the industrial undertaking at Faridabad set up in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 3. The respondent-assessed is a private limited company. It had a factory at Faridabad where it manufactured hand tools. During the assessment year 1968-69 (the corresponding previous year ending on June 30, 1967) the assessed-company set up another factory to manufacture hand tools. This second factory was housed in a newly constructed separate ...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]127ITR746(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The assessed is the applicant in this matter under the I.T. Act, 1961, which is a consolidated reference relating to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessed, Shriram Refrigeration industries Ltd., is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of sealed compressors for air-conditioners and refrigerators. The assessment years concerned are, as already stated, 1966-67 and 1967-68, for which the corresponding previous years are the years which ended on September 30, 1965, and September 30, 1966. At the outset, it must be mentioned that the business of the assessed-company was set up only in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1966-67. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has clearly found that it was clear from the evidence produced that the commercial production started only in October, 1964, and that the business was set up only in the accounting period which ended on September 30, 1965. 2. On June 26, 1961, a technica...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi Vs. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]126ITR673(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) At the instance of the Commissioner of Income- tax these four references, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act') have been referred to us for our opinion. They pertain to assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.(2) The common question of law framed in these references is : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by reference to the capital employed in the industrial undertaking at Faridabad set up in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 ?'(3) The respondent-assessed is a private limited company. It had a factory at Faridabad where it manufactured hand tools. During the assessment year 1968-69 (the corresponding previous year ending on 30th June, 1967) the assessed-company set up another factory to manufacture hand tools. This second factory was housed in a newly constrcted sep...
Tag this Judgment!