Delhi Court February 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: [1981]132ITR144(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) At the instance of the assessed, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following questions of law : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 45,088 incurred on account of commission of inquiry expenses is not allowable revenue expenditure 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 19.170 on account of expenses of the Law Department could-be allowed as deduction in determining the com- pany's profits ?(2) The assessed .is a private limited company belong to a group of companies controlled by Mr. Dalmia. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1958-59 and the corresponding previous year is the year ending 31st March, 1958. (3) On 11th December, 1956, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs), in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointed a Commission of...
Biju Patnaik Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: (1983)3ITD693(Delhi)
1. WT Appeal Nos. 614 to 624 filed by the assessee and WT Appeal Nos.703 to 711 filed by the department pertain to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 and 1960-61 to 1974-75 respectively. The main point in these appeals for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 pertains to the valuation of a property situated at 3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, for wealth-tax purposes. At the time of hearing of these appeals before the Division Bench of the Tribunal, an additional ground was raised to the effect that Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules should be applied in valuing the said property. The contention was that this rule is a rule relating to procedure and would apply to all pending proceedings, including appeal proceedings and even though the WTO had obtained the valuation of property from the Valuation Officer under Section 16A, the provisions of Rule 1BB would override such valuation.Since there was difference of opinion, on the point raised in the appeals on the additional ground of ap...
Sham NaraIn and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, District Viii, Ward F( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR105(Delhi)
S.S. Chanda, J.1. This petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the notices issued under s. 147/148 of the L.T. Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioners to submit returns for reassessment of the escaped and under assessed income for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58.2. The facts are these: In or about the year 1875, the great grandfather of the petitioners Munshi Tulsi Dhar, who was at that time practicing as a pleader in Meerut courts and had his residence both as Delhi and meerut, purchased a portion of agricultural land near village Mauza Malikpur Chhaoni on Karnal Road, Delhi. Another portion of the agricultural land near the said village was purchased by Shri Girdhari lal, another practicing lawyer, in or about the year 1908. After the death of Munshi Tulsi Dhar, the said lands owned by him were inherited by his sons, Shri Salig Ram, Shri Raghbar Dayal and Shri Pannu Lal. Thereafter, upon partition of the family property between the...
O.P. Malhotra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: [1981]129ITR379(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is an income-tax reference pertaining to the assessment year 1960-61 corresponding to the previous year ending on March 31, 1960.2. For the above assessment year, Shri O. P. Malhotra, the assessed, filed a return showing an income of Rs. 1,720 (which was below the taxable limit) on March 30, 1965. On March 28, 1966, he filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 4,295. The assessment was completed by the ITO on March 29, 1966, under s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 20,000. 3. The ITO observed that the assessed had filed a return of income under s. 139(4) of the I. T. Act, 1961, on March 30, 1965. The revised return purportedly filed by the assessed was, according to the ITO, an invalid return because s. 139(5) of the 1961 Act enabled the assessed to file a revised return only in cases where a return had been furnished by him under sub-s. (1) or (2) of s. 139 of the Act, and as the assessed had not filed the return dated March 30, 1...
Raj Bahadur and ors. Vs. Sushila Devi Nigam and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT407; 1981(2)DRJ138
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th February 1978 of the Rent Control Tribun confirming the judgment and order dated 25th September. 1975 and 13th August, 1975 of the Additional Controller whereby an order of eviction was passed against the appellants under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. (2) Chhail Behari Lal, deceased, one of the tenants in the suit premises was originally the owner-landlord of the suit property bearing Municipal No. 162/IX, Gali Batashan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Smt. Sushila Devi Nigam, respondent No. 1 was a tenant in a portion of the ground floor of the sui property. Chhail Behari Lal sold the property to one Thakur Dass vide a sale deed dated 6th February, 1956 with the result that Chhail Behari Lal and other appellants became tenants under Tnakur Dass. Thakur Dass later on sold this property to respondent No. 1-Smt. Sushila Devi...
Pesticides India, Proprietors of Mewar Oil and General Mills Limited V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi73; [1983]54CompCas147(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi864
1. The petitioner has made an application under s. 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration. With this petition he has made another application under s. 41 read with Sch. 2 of the Indian Arbitration Act and O. 39, rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This order will govern them both. 2. The salient facts are simple. The petitioner, Pesticides India, wanted to purchase raw material known as 'Carbaryl technical' through the canalised agency of State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd., (the Corporation), respondent No. 1. Pesticides made an application in the prescribed form. They entered into an agreement with the Corporation. They gave earnest money to them in the form of two bank guarantees Nos. 16 and 17 of 1979, issued on 14th April, 1979, by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the bank') each one being for an amount of Rs. 1,44,000. 3. In their application dated 6th June...
Lt. Col. K.C. Sud, New Delhi Vs. S.C. Gudimani, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2779; 20(1981)DLT302; ILR1981Delhi680
ORDER1. S. C. Gudimani lodged a complaint against six persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi, on February 21, 1980 under Sections 120B, 420, 421, 422, 425 and 34 I.P.C. Though there is nothing on record, but it is not denied that the accused were represented by Shri Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar, a junior colleague of Shri Dinesh Chand Mathur, and they did so without a Vakalatnama. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated May 15, 1980, summoned only four of the accused including Lt. Col. K. C. Sud, under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and dismissed the complaint with regard to offences under Sections 120B, 421, 422 and 425 I.P.C. 2. Against the aforesaid order, the present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Lt. Col. Sud by Shri D. C. Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar. The revision petition was admitted by this court on August 20, 1980. When the petition came up for hearing, Shri Balraj Trikha, the learned Advocate for th...
Malkhan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi568; 1981LabIC1633; (1981)IILLJ174Del
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. These are four petitions by four different persons seeking similar relief in almost identical circumstances. 2. Each of the petitioners was employed by the Railway as a 'substitute'. Three of them were taken on as safaiwalas (cleaners) and one as a khalasi. They came to be so employed on different dates in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. The exact dates are not material. All of them continued to work as 'substitutes' for many years until, by notices dated 8th September, 1978, their services were suddenly terminated. The notice were verbatim the same, except for the name employee to whom they were addressed. They read as follows : 'In pursuance of Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, I hereby give notice to .......... s/o ........., Substitute S and W. Safaiwala under CFO-DLI that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notices is served on or, as the case may ...
K.C. Sud Vs. S.C. Gudimani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT30
M.L. Jain, J. (1) S. C. Gudimani lodged a complaint against six persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on February 21, 1980, under Ss. 120B, 420, 421, 422, 425 and 34 Indian Penal Code. Though there is nothing on record, but it is not denied that the accused were represented by Shri Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar, a junior colleague of Shri Dinesh Chand Mathur, and they did so without a Vakalatnama. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated May 15, 1980, summoned only four of the accused including Lt. Col. K. C. Sud. under S. 420 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code. and dismissed the complaint with regard to offences under Ss. 120B, 421, 422 and 425 IP.C.(2) Against the aforesaid order, the present petition under S. 397 Criminal Procedure Code. has been filed on behalf of Lt. Col. Sud by Shri D. C. Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar. The revision petition was admitted by this court on August 20, 1980. When the petition came up for hearing, Shri Balraj Trikha, t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mill ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR641(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in the matter of income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessed had spent a sum of Rs. 32,431 towards the remodelling of furniture in the various retail depots of the company and claimed it as a deductible expense. The ITO and the AAC were of the opinion that the expenditure was capital in nature but, on further appeal, the Tribunal took a contrary view. It was of the opinion that the expenses were necessitated by changes in design and were incurred in the ordinary course of business of the assessed. 2. The Tribunal has now stated a case as directed by this court in its order dated March 13, 1973, in I.T.C. No. 12 of 1971 and referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 32,431 incurred on re-modelling of furniture was allowable as an expenditure on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »