Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD686(Delhi)
1. Both the appeals are by the assessee. The assessment years involved are 1957-58 and 1958-59 with the respective valuation dates being 31-3-1957 and 31-3-1958. The assessments have been framed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), and the following common grounds have been taken in respect of both the years : 2. There is no evidence with the department whatsoever that the assessment made was on the date as mentioned in the assessment order. On the other hand, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the assessment had become barred by time and was completed after 31-3-1979. 3. There is no evidence with the department that the demand notices, etc., were issued on 24-3-1979. 4. That the learned AAC erred in law in not annulling the assessment made by the WTO. 5. That notice under Section 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act was not served on all the legal heirs of Late Shri K.D. Suri. 6. That the learned WTO failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and did n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD469(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a registered firm, comprises of seven partners, namely, Amar Nath, Magan Nath, Ajit Pd. Jain, Tribhawan Pd., Sumati Pd., Dharam Parkash and Virender Kumar. All these partners share the profit and loss of the firm in the ratio of 1/7th for each partner. The head office of the firm is at Chawri Bazar and it has a branch at Pahar Ganj. The business of the assessee is to deal in paper and plywood products. The previous year for the assessment year 1971-72 ended on 31-3-1971.2. Gokal Chand Jagan Nath Private Limited was incorporated on 20-11-1964. All the seven partners of the assessee-firm are the shareholders of this company. Even before the incorporation of the said limited company, the assessee had advanced certain moneys to the promoters of the aforesaid company. Up to 9-4-1965 the assessee-firm advanced to the aforesaid company a sum of Rs. 3,04,807. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 was transferred to the share capital on account of the 7 partners. Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD920(Delhi)
1. As common contentions are involved in these three appeals, filed by the assessee, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The main contentions in these appeals are against levy of interest for non-payment of tax and the valuation of jewellery by the WTO, which according to the assessee, is excessive. However, in all these appeals a preliminary objection has been taken by way of grounds of appeal, to the effect that neither the assessment order nor the demand notice for the three years had been served on the assessee and, accordingly, the legal consequence is that no assessments have been made on the assessee for these years. Accordingly, it is contended that no interest could be charged on the assessee for non-payment of the tax, which has not been demanded.3. We have gone through the WTO's records and we find that he has completed the assessments for these years and had also prepared the demand notices. However, these were despatched by him to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Del)199; [1983]141ITR806(Delhi)
Jain, J.1. Both the above-mentioned references under s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), and they involve common question of law. In I.T.R.No. 34/72 which pertains to the assessment year 1961-62, the Delhi Bench (C) of the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law as arising out of the appellate order dated March 5, 1970, for decision : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus of Rs. 1,65,600 realised by the acquisition of the lands in question by the Government is assessable to tax as the profits of the assessed's business (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus of Rs. 1,65,600 arising as a result of the acquisition of the land in question constitutes agricultural income exempt under section 4(3)(viii) read with section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas375(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J. 1. On October 1, 1981, I have passed an order appointing an administrator for the Motion Pictures Association and he has assumed charge. Ordinarily, I would have passed a reasoned order if there was sufficient time left for me. But the counsel for some members of the executive committee was so persistent in my passing an immediate order that there was no alternative. He filed a separate C.A. for the purpose. His complaint was that the business of crores of rupees is affected and the management has come to a grinding halt. He also complained that the petitioners were avoiding early orders being passed. My illness and intervening holidays delayed the matter a little. The reasons for the order are now stated. 2. Motion Pictures Association is a company under 25 of the Company Act, controlling distribution and exhibition of Hindi Films (mostly) in the Northern region. The management and the working of the company are the subject-matter of innumerable proceedings in this court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1983]140ITR521(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. The assessed in the present reference is a partnership firm M/s. Central India Corporation, which was constituted by a deed dated April 29, 1961, for doing business in goat and sheep skins. The terms of the partnership was for three years commencing from April 1, 1961. The business of the firm, however, continued to be carried on till January 16, 1969. The firm was granted registration under the I.T. Act not only for the assessment years up to 1964-65, but also for the subsequent years up to 1968-69, although the terms fixed by the partnership deed had expired in those years. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, passed an order under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, canceling continuation of the registration for the assessment year 1968-69. He was of the opinion that the ITO was not right in law in continuing the registration and, accordingly, he directed the ITO to treat the assessed as an unregistered firm for the year 1968-69. 3. There was an appeal to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982(3)DRJ131; 1982RLR156
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 7th April, 1979 dismissing the petition of the appellant-husband for dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1), (i)(ia)(ib) of the Act. Briefly, the facts are that the: marriage between the parties was solemnised according to the Hindu rites on 21st June, 1961 at village Bharthal, Delhi. The parties after marriage resided at village Rewari, Khera (District Rohtak), Haryana and lived together for a period of about ten years. The parties have one son, one daughter and another child born on 1st May, 1975. One more child born from marriage had died after birth. The appellant-husband used to reside in the village without any source of income. In August, 1968 he got an employment as a Constable in the Delhi Police. The husband shifted to Delhi. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]163ITR524(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan 1. The assessed-respondent in this case, Shri R. Dalmia, has subsequently died. However, a vakalatnama has been presented to this court on behalf of the executors and the legal representatives of the late Shri R. Dalmia. We direct in the circumstances that the name of Shri R. Dalmia be substituted by the names of the various persons mentioned in the annexure to the vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. The cause title may be amended as Smt. Saraswati Dalmia and others in place of Shri R. Dalmia. 2. The question referred to this court in this income-tax reference which relates to the assessment year 1960-61 is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in treating the municipal valuation as the annual letting value of the properties, No. 3, Sikandra Road and No. 9, Mansingh Road, New Delhi ?' 3. Both counsel agree that the same question in relation to the assessment year 1961-62 has been disposed of b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1982(44)FLR356]; (1982)IILLJ191Del
Rajinder Sachar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant by which it had challenged the order of the Labour Court holding that the removal of respondent No. 1 was illegal and unjustified and that he is entitle to reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages. 2. Respondent No. 1 was a conductor with the appellant. He was charge-sheeted on December 21, 1970 on three charges which related to his allegedly having collected the fare from the passengers but not having given them the tickets. A domestic enquiry was held and the enquiry officer held that charges No. 1 and 2 were proved against the workman. No finding was recorded on the third charge. The disciplinary authority, the General Manager, after issuing a show-cause found that charge No. 1 was not proved and without adverting to the fact that the enquiry officer had not found charge No. 3 proved he (the General Manager) purported to hold that the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1983]54CompCas856(Delhi); 21(1982)DLT150
D.K. Kapnr, J.(1) Order dated July 20, 1981 a winding up petition instituted by Harish Bansal and some other praying for the winding up of M/s Moti Films Pvt. Ltd., was admitted after issue of show cause notice and citation was directed to issue. The company and one of its Directors have appealed to challenge the validity of the said order. The order under appeal shows there are five grounds on which the petition has been admitted. These are : (a) that previously a petititioners with Lesser allegations, being C.P. 64 of 1980 had been admitted; (b) that there were statements in the pleadings showing that the Company was in the nature of a partnership from which the petitioners had been ousted from mangements. The judgment in the case of Ebrahimi v. Westbourne. Galleries Ltd., (1973 Appeal Cases 360) was relied upon and a document dated May 2, 1980 showing the nature of partnership was relied upon. (e) Sums of money due to Mrs. Madhu Bansal and two of the partnership firms had not been p...
Tag this Judgment!