Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Madan Lal Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR409(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. A very short question is involved in this reference under the I.T. Act at the instance of the Commissioner of income-tax. The reference arises out of the assessment of Shri Madan Lal Jain for the assessment year 1963-64. The assessed, an individual, is a partner in two firms, M/s. Kanshi Ram Shital Kumar and M/s. Jain Finance Co. M/s. Kanshi Ram Shital Kumar, adopted the financial year as its previous year and the assessed derived a share income of Rs. 6 from this firm during the financial year 1962-63 relevant for the assessment year 1963-64. He had besides some property income, speculation profits and capital gains. 2. The assessed had become a partner in M/s. Jain Finance Co. under as instrument of partnership dated May 10, 1962. But the accounts of M/s. Jain Finance Co. were closed for the first time in May, 1963, and the previous year of that firm was the year which ended on the corresponding day in May of each year. The result was that in respect of the shar...
Prem Kumar Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT273; 1981RLR652
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Respondent Harbans Singh and appellant Prem Kumar formed a partnership on September 26, 1978 to run 'Rocket Circus' with its registered office at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The initial investment of Rs. 60,000.00 was to be made in equal shares by each of the partners. Prem Kumar was responsible for running the business and maintain the accounts. The partnership was at will determinable by three months' notice on either side. The respondent invested in all Rs. 45,000/, while the appellant did not contribute anything towards the capital. The circus gave performances in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, but the accounts received by the respondent showed a deficit of Rs. 34,000.00 . The respondent visited the circus at Nonik in Punjab, and discovered that a galary worth Rs. 20,000.00 was missing and the accounts were irregularly maintained. He served a telegraphic notice on the appellant on June 25, 1979 stating that the partnership stands dissolved with immediate effect, that no m...
Hazarilal Vs. Dharam Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT76; 1981RLR574
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) The sole controversy involved in this appeal against the award dt. 21.7.73 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal pertains to the question of compensation. It has arisen from a road accident which took place at Rohtak Road on 1.5.68 at about 2-45 p.m. Ram Karan deceased, was then sitting on the pillion seat of a two-wheeler scooter no. DLQ-1277 driven by Ishwar Singh. Bus no. HRG-420 driven by Dharam Pal Singh respondent no. 1 and operated by the Haryana Roadways and the Haryana State, respondents no. 2 and 3 respectively at that time came from behind at a fast speed and without blowing horn dashed against the scooter and over-ran and killed Ram Karan. Ishwar Singh was also thrown off and received injuries. (2) Ram Karan at that time was 17 years old and was a student of 10th class. His father Hazari Lal was an agriculturist, and according to him Ram Karan used to help him in the agriculture operation. A claim for compensation for Rs. 50,000.00 was filed by Ram Karan...
Prem Chandra Sharma Vs. V.S. Talwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi308a
Harish Chandra, J.(1) The petitioner before me js a tenant who challenges an order of eviction passed against him by the learned Additional Rent Controller on grounds covered by clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (2) The premises were let out by the landlord to the tenant under an agreement proved by the landlord and marked Ex. AW1/4. This agreement is on page 81 of the record of the lower court. Para 7 of the agreement provided as under :- 'That the Lesser shall pay all the taxes of any kind whatsoever including house tax ground rent as are or may hereinafter be assessed on the demised premises by the municipality or any other authority what so ever provided the premises are used for residence only.'Para 12, towards the end of the agreement, provides as under :- 'That the Lessee shall use the premises for the purpose of Residential/Personal Office only and not for commercial purposes.'In the application for eviction in para 18(a) the landlord averred that...
Master Mahabir JaIn Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD132(Delhi)
As the Commissioner's presumption that the property had been undervalued was unfounded and not supported by any specific instances, therefore, he was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 25(2) and by applying the multiple suggested by the Commissioner, the value of the property went down as compared to the value adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer and therefore question of loss of revenue's interest did not arise.1. In these three appeals, the assessee challenged (he validity of the orders under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-lax Act, 1957 ("the Act") passed by the Commissioner for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77.2. The assessee is a minor. He filed his returns of wealth through his guardian for the years under consideration showing the immovable properties as follows :- Assessment year Rs. 1974-75 38,510 1975-76 1,70,000 1976-77 2,70,000 At the time of the assessment, the WTO did not accept the valuation shown for the assessment year 1974-75 and enhanced it to Rs. ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asia Udyog (P.) Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi582
Sachar, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether before initiating proceedings under ss. 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as 'the LIC') is required under law to seek leave of the winding up court under s. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 2. Winding-up proceedings were started against M/s. Asia Udyog (P.) Ltd. It is common case that an order for winding up had been passed on February 2, 1978, and the winding-up proceedings are pending in this court. The company was admittedly a tenant of the premises at 8, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The said premises also admittedly belong to the LIC. The 1971 Act defines 'Public premises' and it is the common case of the parties that the premises in dispute are covered by the definition of s. 2(e) of the 1971 Act. 3. The case of the LIC is that because of the various unlawful acts done by the company its possession was unauthorised and it was entitled to seek possession of the pre...
Sher Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1337; 20(1981)DLT22b
ORDER1. Fiat Car No. DEA 3470 with the following : Engine No. PA 168914, and Chassis No. PA 251489 was purchased by Mr. D. S. Dang, Advocate, Delhi, from the Prem Nath Motors Limited on 29-6-1978. It was, however, stolen from the precincts of the Delhi High Court when he had parked that car there on 2-4-1979. A report of this theft was lodged by him at the Tilak Marg Police Station of New Delhi vide F.I.R. Case No. 146 of 1979. 2. Soon thereafter, one Hardayal, alias Har Narain, got a fiat car registered with the transport authority of Ganga Nagar under registration No. RRK 6873 with following : Engine No. PA 168814 and Chassis No. 252489. It had the same colour as of the car of Mr. D. S. Dang except that the roof had a different colour. Hardayal transferred this car to Karam Chand on 5-6-1979 and on the same day Karam Chand transferred that to Kashmiri Lal for a purported consideration of Rupees 35,500/-. Kashmiri Lal claimed to be a cloth merchant of Ganga Nagar. This Kashmiri Lal...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Pure Ice Cream Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR556(Delhi); [1982]9TAXMAN246(Delhi)
Acts/Rules/Orders:Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 36, 36(2) and 256(1)S. Ranganathan, J.1. This a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred to this court is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,68,487 in the computation of the profits and gains of the business carried on by it in the accounting year under section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Pure Ice Cream Co., a registered firm doing business in ice cream. The previous year relevant to the assessment year concerned is the calendar year 1964. As will be seen from the question, the reference relates to the deductibility of a sum of Rs. 1,68,487 in determining the assessed's business profits. The...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Mahabir Parshad and Sons and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi150; 21(1982)DLT243; 1982RLR385
D.K. Kapar, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Union of India and others in respect of some orders passed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as Act) relating to terminal tax. The respondent M/s. Mahabir Parshad & Sons had imported some sanitary goods in July 1971. On Aug. 10, 1971 the terminal tax officer noted that the statement of Sh. Kunj Behari Lal belonging to the first respondent firm, showed that there was a misdeclaration for the purposes of evading terminal tax and imposed the penalty at the rate of ten times the tax. An appeal was taken by M/s. Mahabir Parshad & Sons to Shri M.K. Chawla, Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 169 read with Sections 178 to 183 of the Act. The appeal was rejected by the orders dated July 20, 1972. thereforee, a review application was filed which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on September 1, 1973. Therein it was noted t...
Mahabir Pershad and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi423; [1982]135ITR775(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The Income-tax Reference and the Letters Patent Appeal are interconnected and it will be convenient to dispose of both of them by a common order. The subject matter of both is a claim which was made by the assessed-appellant as early as' 24th November, 1947 for relief under Section 25(3)125(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. For various reasons which will be briefly adverted to hereinafter the final disposal of the claim made by the assessed at the hands of the income-tax Appellate Tribunal was only in October, 1974. One can only hope that this litigation will terminate at least after the disposal of this reference and Letters Patent Appeal by this court. (2) The assessed is a Hindu undivided family styled Mahabir Pershad & Sons. It had been carrying on business in cement, tiles, marbles, sanitary goods, money lending, contracts etc. for a very long time. It had paid income-tax under the Indian lncomte-taxAct, 1916. (3) On 31st March, 1943 there was a partitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »