Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)ILLJ368Del
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this writ petition the challenge is to the award of the Labour Court, Delhi dated 14th January, 1970 whereby the dispute referred to it by the Lt.-Governor has been decided in favor of the Management.(2) The petitioner was admittedly a workman of the respondent. On 6th September, 1968 he was arrested by the police. According to the petitioner the arrest was made with an ulterior motive. For our purposes it is not relevant as to what was the reason of his arrest. The petitioner remained absent from duty with effect from 6th September, 1968. According to the petitioner he sent application for leave from jail, receipt of which is denied by the management. It was also stated by the petitioner that on 12th September, 1968 his brother submitted an application to the management to the effect that the petitioner had been arrested and that he should be granted leave.(3) The petitioner was released from jail on 25th September, 1968. Thereafter on 27th September, 1968 he rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD922(Delhi)
1. These two appeals filed by the revenue raised a common contention and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. The ITO by his order dated 13-2-1980 under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the financial year 1976-77, levied interest of Rs. 1,813 for the period 1-4-1976 to 31-1-1980 on the ground that the tax deducted at source out of the salaries of the employees of the assessee, during that financial year, was short. For a similar default pertaining to the financial year 1977-78, the ITO by his order dated 15-3-1980 under Section 201(1A) levied interest of Rs. 2,632 for the period 1-4-1977 to 29-2-1980. The assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of both the years. The Commissioner (Appeals) in principle confirmed the order of the ITO for both the years but gave a direction that the tax deducted at source should be re-computed after taking into consideration certain instructions contained in Circular No. 196 [F. No. 275/29/76...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT41; 1982(3)DRJ283
(1) The subordinate judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to refer the govt. claim to arbitrator. He had jurisdiction to refer only the petitioner's claim ofRs. 12,800. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and this defect cannot be waived. Each reference is a separate reference. The Petitioner's reference of his dispute was one references. So was the Govt. claim the two cannot be combined. The reference is not a jumble of odds and ends. It is an order of the Court. He who asks for reference must see that Court is competent to refer....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]163ITR525(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur1. The question referred to us for the assessment year 1961-62 is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in treating the municipal valuation as the annual letting value of the properties, 3, Sikandra Road and 9, Mansingh Road, New Delhi ?' 2. The assessed is Shri Dalmia who has since died and we are informed that his legal representatives have been imp leaded. 3. We have also been referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT : [1981]131ITR435(SC) wherein it was held that the annual value had to be determined under the Income-tax Act on the basis of the standard rent and if it was not done, then the assessment was erroneous. We may point out that this holds true only till the amendment made subsequently in the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the present case is an old case arising under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the judgment would have full ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Del)177; [1983]140ITR525(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. These fourteen references pertain to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1970-71. The relevant valuation dates are 31st March, 1964, 31st March, 1965 and so on for the several assessment years respectively. The assesseds, Dr. Roshan Lal and his wife, Smt. Savitri Devi are the owners of a house at 83, Malcha Marg, New Delhi. The common questions pertaining to both the assesseds that have been referred for our opinion are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 50% unearned increase in land in respect of Malcha Marg property stood diverted to the Govt. by an overriding title and would not form part of the wealth of the assessed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 50% unearned increase aforesaid would be a 'debt owed' within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act and as such deductible in arriving at the net wealth of the assessed ?' 2. It is conceded by counsel for the applicant that the first. question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT155
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Since common questions of law arise in these two appeals, I propose to dispose them of by this common judgment. (2) Except where necessary to refer to the facts of S.A.O. No. 366 of 1981, mainly the facts of S.A.O. 365 of 1981 are being referred to in this judgments (3) The challenge in this Second Appeal (S.A.O. 365 of 1981) is to the legality of the order passed under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein called 'the Act'), which order has been affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal, whereby the tenant, appellant herein, 'has been directed to pay to the landlord, respondent herein, or to deposit in Court rent at the rate of3472.00 with effect from 1st June, 1980, and continue to pay or deposit the future monthly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month. This order has been passed during the pendency of the petition under section 14(1)(a) of the Act in which it has been alleged that the appellant had not paid or tendered the rent since 1st March, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT182; 1982RLR247
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is a reference by the Additional District and Sessions 'WHETHERany amount of property tax is in dispute in this appeal and the same has to be deposited by the appellant in the office of the Corporation before the appeal can be heard or determined, or not ?'Similar reference is made in the other references. They would thereforee, be disposed of by one order. For the purpose of the present reference Iill refer to the facts of Civil Reference No. 2 of 1971. (2) The first rateable value of premises No. 2, Kalkaji Industrial Area, New Delhi, was fixed at Rs. 37,800.00 with effect from 1-4-1960 by the Corporation. With effect from 1-3-1967 the rateable value was increased to Rs.88,500.00 due to some additional construction. After the payment of the house-tax for the year 1969-70 on the said basis, the Corporation issued a notice to the landlord on 13-3-1970, under Section 126 of the Act for raising the rateable value to Rs. l,29,650.00 with effect from 1-4-1969. The grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi290; 21(1982)DLT29; ILR1982Delhi423; 1982RLR196
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This case is a good example of law's delays. We have taken 15 years to decide this suit. So many years in the court of first instant. How many more years it will take in the appellate courts no one 'knows. (2) Abdul Wahid, Mohd. Umar and Mohd. Sadiq sons of Mohd. Hassan are admittedly owners of extensive lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 5361182, 5381189, 185, 188, 177, 176, 180, 183,. 184, 187,6311535(182, 186, , 178 and 5371189 admeasuring 39 bighas, 4 bids was (=39,514sq.yds. or thereabout) situated in village Rajpur Chawni, Tehsil and District Delhi. The area where the lands were situated is called Gur Ki Mandi. The owners were in possession of the land. (3) In the wake of partition the Parliament passed an Act in 1948 called The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Laid Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act No. Ix of 1948) (the Act). The- object of this legislation was 'to provide for speedy acquisition of land for the resettlement of displaced persons', as the preama...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD275(Delhi)
1. By this appeal the assessee, a private limited company, carrying on business in the publication of books in the form of novels and pocket books, has raised the objection that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming a disallowance of Rs. 10,000 paid towards medical aid to Shri Gulshan Nanda by the assessee-company. The year involved is 1978-79 for which the relevant accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1978.2. The assessee-company publishes pocket books in Hindi and Urdu. It paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards the medical expenses of one of its writers Shri Gulshan Nanda. The assessee's contention was that the said Shri Nanda was one of the most important writers and was the backbone of the assessee-company. The novels written by Shri Nanda had been selling in lakhs and that because of his books, the assessee had been able to sell novels of other writers as well. According to the assessee the works of Shri Nanda had helped it to develop its business in a big wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD1094(Delhi)
1 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve a minor issue.] 5. We now take up the assessees' two appeals. The dispute in these appeals is common, and it concerns the charging to tax of the commission on net profits allowed to the assessees in 1978-79, whereas according to the assessees these called for being assessed only in the next year, namely, 1979-80. The commission was receivable by the assessees from Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The accounting period of the company ended on 31-12-1977 whereas the accounting period of the assessees ended on 31-3-1978. The assessee's contention was that the accounts of the company for the year ending on 31-12-1977 were passed at the general body meeting of the said company field on 25-5-1978 and that the net profits of the company were determined only on that date and that, as such, the commission payable to the assessees became due only on that date which date fell outside the previous year of the assessees relevant for this year. ...
Tag this Judgment!