Delhi Court December 1981 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.
O.P. Vohra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ289; 1982RLR635
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) A show cause notice was issued to the respondents to which a reply was field. On 4th November, 1981, we directed that the pleadings should be completed and the counsel also agreed that the petition should be decided, if possible) at the adjourned hearing, particularly as it was a pension case. This is how we come to hear this petition.(2) We issue rule D.B., and proceed now to decide the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.(3) The petitioner joined the Customs and Central Excise Service as an Inspector and later became a Superintendent. He was transferred as Excise Officer on deputation to M/s. Heavy Electricals (India) Ltd., Bhopal, now known as M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. While serving at Bhopal on deputation, the petitioner was drawing his salary and a Deputation (Duty) Allowance calculated at 20% of his basic pay. After three years of service at Bhopal, he was permanently transferred to M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., and was deemed to have r...
Hari Singh (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD783(Delhi)
Where impugned order was not a self-speaking one and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner wanted to adopt the same reasons which the assessing officer adopted, the same was liable to be set aside being not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6).Appeal (AAC)--PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY--Ex parte order.Passing of an ex parte order without serving on the assessee a notice under section 250(1) is not good at law.Under section 250(1), the service of notice on the assessee is imperative on the part of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before proceeding to decide the appeal.Appeal (AAC)--PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY--Ex parte order.Where Appellate Assistant Commissioner decided appeal ex parte without serving notice under section 250(1) and passed a non-speaking order without giving reason of his own, his order was not sustainable.Under section 250(1), the service of notice on the assessee is imperative on the part of the Appe...
Atlas Commercial Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD1088(Delhi)
1. The appellant is a non-resident company. During the previous year, ended 31-3-1979, rele-for the assessment year 1979-80, the appellant sold 9,520 shares of Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. on 13-3-1979 and 16-3-1979, for a sum of Rs. 97,153. It declared the capital gains, arising on the sale of these shares, at Rs. 16,016. This was on the basis that these shares were sold for US $11,969 at the exchange rate of Rs. 12.32==$1 while these shares were purchased for $9,996 resulting in a capital gain of $1,973.25. In support of this sale, the assessee filed a certificate from J.S. Sawhney & Co. ; Share Broker, Delhi Stock Exchange, showing the rates at which these shares were sold on the two dates.2. The ITO rejected the computation of capital gains made by the appellant in dollar to dollar basis as incorrect, as the shares were registered in India and were also sold in India at the Stock Exchange at the rate mentioned in the certificate. He, therefore, held that the capital gains had accru...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. All India Hindu Mahasabha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Del)137; [1983]140ITR748(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The eligibility of the All India Hindu Mahasabha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sabha') to exemption under s. 11 read with s. 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is the question at issue in these cross references. The relevant portions of these provisions as they stand at the relevant time, were in the following terms: '2. (15) Charitablm purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit.' '11. Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. -(1) Subject to the provisions of section 60 to 63. The following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income- (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes to the extent to which such income is applied in such purposes in India;..... (b) income derived from property held under tru...
Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Del)185; [1983]140ITR532(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This is a combined reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on application made before it by the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the assessed seeking the reference of certain questions of law for the decision of this court. The applications for reference arose out of an order of the Tribunal dated September 13, 1976, by which it disposed of an appeal filed by the assessed in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 partly in favor of the appellant and partly in favor of the Department which is why both the parties filed application for reference. 2. The assessed is the Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed'). It is a cent. per cent. subsidiary of the State Trading Corporation of Indian (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC'). The assessed is carrying on business in the export of handlooms, handicrafts and antiques and this export business is its only business activity. We are concerned in th...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Balkrishna Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT167; ILR1982Delhi756
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent plaintiff brought a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against the appellant, the Food corporation of India, for recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs and odd, on the allegation that he submitted on 27-1-1978 a tender for the supply of 500 rolls of black polythene film at the rate of Rs. 13.87 per kg. and his tender was accepted on 28-3-1978. In pursuance of the terms of the contract, inspection of the goods was carried out from 16-5-1978 to 18-5-1978 by the said Corporation's regional office, Lucknow. The goods were then sealed and samples were taken for testing according to relevant Isi specification. The defendant communicated approval of the goods on 15-11-1978 and directed on 12-12-1978 that the goods be dispatched to Patiala. Later on, the inspection note dated 19-1-1979 was also issued. The plaintiff then dispatched the rolls on 25-1-1979. 95 per. cent of the price was immediately payable, but the defendant failed to pay. Meanwhile 5 per cent balance pri...
V.S. Madhusudan Dayal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD564(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal is V.S. Madhusudan Dayal & Co. of Delhi. The year of assessment involved is 1975-76.2. Admittedly, the assessee-firm came into existence in June 1971 with three partners, namely, Shri Madhusudan Dayal, Shri Varinder Singh and Shri Narinder Singh. By the time the impugned order in the present case under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was passed by the ITO for the year under consideration, the assessee-firm had already been granted registration for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 and continuation of registration for the accounting period relevant to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.The ITO on application made by the assessee-firm for continuation of registration under Section 184(7) for the year under consideration noticed that the said application was in the prescribed form No. 12 requesting for continuation of registration and that application was in order and in time. He, however, disallowed c...
Mehra Mehra Vs. Sant Kaur Grewal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT196
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this revision petition filed by the tenant the order of the Rent Controller allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent- landlord is being assailed. (2) On 7th March, 1974 the premises No. S-41, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, were let by the landlady to the tenant. The landlady was a medical practitioner in Jammu and Kashmir where her husband was also employed. She has two sons, one of whom is living in a rented accommodation in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The son's house is stated to have been let out for a period of four years. The landlady and her husband who were in their eighties and were ill desired to shift to Delhi to live with their son here. The tenant was requested to vacate the premises. He declined to do so. (3) On 4th February, 1980 the landlady filed an application under Section 14(l)(a) read with Section 258 for eviction of the tenant from the said house. The requirement indicated in the application inter-alia was as follows :- 'FORsome t...
EdwIn Brave Vs. Hari Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT209; 1982(3)DRJ117; ILR1982Delhi697
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Controller dated 21st April, 1980 refusing the petitioner-tenant leave to defend and passing an order of eviction against him. A portion of the premises on the first floor of the property at 41, National Park, Lajpat Nagar Iv, New Delhi was let to the petitioner on 1st December, 1967 on a monthly rent at Rs. 215.00 . The respondent filed the eviction application under Section 14(l)(e) read with Sections 25A and 25B of the Act on 11th October, 1979 alleging that he was owner of the premises in dispute, that he required the premises for the residence of himself a(2) This is however another objection to the effect that the eviction application does not disclose any cause of action and as such the same is liable to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 23 of the D...
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Shushila Devi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD778(Delhi)
1. In this departmental appeal the contention on behalf of the revenue is that the interest derived by the minors on the investments made with the firm was assessable in the hands of the mother under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee's minor son, master Kamlesh Kumar, was admitted to the benefits of partnership in Dauji Industries, Hathras. The share came to Rs. 33,505 and it was assessed in the hands of the mother.3. The assessee came in appeal before the AAC who noted that besides the profit falling to the share of the minor, his account had been credited with interest of Rs. 6,720, on amounts standing to the credit of his personal account. This amount of interest also had been assessed by the ITO under Section 64(1)(iii). It was urged that the minor was under no obligation to provide capital to the firm and, therefore, there was no connection between the interest income and his admission to the benefits of partnership. The AAC was of the opinion that a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »