Delhi Court May 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.
Raghbir Singh Etc Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi246; 1981RLR584
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner are owners of building No. 2831 to 2845 at Bara Bazar, Kashmiri Gate Delhi. The original plan for construction of commercial building consisting of shops and offices was sanctioned by the respondents in 1966. Broadly speaking there were three blocks of construction. Block 'A' and 'C' were connected by Block 'B'. Block 'A' and Block 'C' were constructed by the petitioners and they applied for a completion certificate in 1969. There is some dispute regarding issuance of the completion certificate as the respondents claim that there were certain deviations and unauthorised constructions, and the petitioners claim deemed issuance u/s 346. According to the original sanction the entire construction in Blocks 'A', 'B' and 'C' was to be completed within one year. No extension of time was sought before the completion of one year. The sanction was thus exhausted after the said stipulated period. Thirteen years thereafter, that is, on 2.1.1979 the petitioners appli...
Mehar Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ28
(1) The petitioners were displaced persons, and residents of A.R.P. Quarters Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi. They were the tenants of Government and paying rent regularly. The residents formed an association for the welfare of the occupants.(2) The D.D.A. proposed to construct multi-storeyed flats in Motia Khan after demolitioning the A.R.P. Qrs. The representatives of the Association approached the Delhi Administration and the D.D.A. for allotment of alternative accommodation. The Delhi Administration took a decision for the reliabilitation of the residents of the A.R.P. Qrs. and communicated it in a letter dated Feb. 8, 1965. Administration explained that the occupants can be allotted flats in the Motia Khan and those who were not willing to accept houses in the multi-storeyed building, could be considered for allotment of developed plots in the Naraina Residential Scheme of D.D.A. on payment of the full rate of premium to be fixed by the Govt. The Vice-Chairman of D.D.A. had a dis...
S.K. Sen Vs. Kunwarani Chandra Kunwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi337; 20(1981)DLT191; 1981(2)DRJ209; 1981RLR532
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) A petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant, S.K. Sen, from premises constituting of first floor of X-6, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, was brought by the owner-landlady Smt. Kunwarani Chandra Kunwar, pleading that she bona fide required the same for her residence. The tenant contested the petition and sought permission to defend which was granted. Later, however, the ejectment was allowed by Shri J.D. Kapur, Rent Controller, Delhi, after considering the evidence which both the sides had led. The tenant now feeling aggrieved has moved the present revision before this Court. (2) I have heard both the sides and considered the entire evidence on record. In my opinion, no interference is called for in the assessment of evidence by the learned Rent Controller. He has some to the conclusion that the landlady is the owner of the premises, and has no suitable accommodation in her possession and further that she, in fact, bona fide requi...
Mridu Hari Dalmia Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: (1984)7ITD761(Delhi)
1. The main contention raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the 'fair rental value' of the rent-free accommodation at 1-Tis January Marg, New Delhi, provided to him by his employer cannot exceed its standard rent as fixed by the Additional Rent Controller at Rs. 27,500 per annum and, consequently, its value determined by the authorities below at Rs. 1,10,000 is not sustainable.2. The assessee, Shri Mridu Hari Dalmia, is the executive director of Orissa Cement Ltd., Rajgangpur. Orissa Cement Ltd. had taken on lease one of the three flats at 1-Tis January Marg, New Delhi, from its owner Hari Bros. (P.) Ltd. at a rent of Rs. 2,250 per month. When the assessee came on transfer from Orissa to Delhi on 1-5-1973, he was provided by his employer the said flat free of rent. The assessee was, thus, in occupation of the flat for 11 months in the relevant accounting year ended on 31-3-1974. The assessee, however, declared its perquisite value at Rs. 9,375 only, at the rate of 12 per cent...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Minerals and Metals Trad ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Del)228; [1982]134ITR78(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These two references arise under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and involve the much debated question whether certain sums set apart by the respondent constituted 'reserves' within the meaning of r. 1 of Sch. II to the Act. 2. The assessed is a public sector corporation carrying on the business of import and export of minerals and metals. It is incorporated as a company under the Companies Act. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the assessed claimed that the following amounts, which were shown in the balance-sheet of the corporation for the relevant years as on April 1, 1965, and April 1, 1966, respectively, constituted reserves which should be added to the capital base of the company for determining the statutory deduction under the Act: As on 1-4-1965 As on 1-4-1966Rs. Rs.1. Staff benefit reserve 67,854 1,25,7322. Self-insurance reserve 7,08,696 14,98,8783. Staff bonus reserve nil 13,31,8933. The ITO was of...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. R.S. Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Del)217; [1982]133ITR57(Delhi)
Mrs. Leila Seth, J. 1. At the instance of the Addl. Commissioner, the Income-tax Appellate tribunal has referred under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act (1961 Act), the following question for our opinion : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the amount representing benefit to the assessed's children from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund was liable to be excluded from the assessed's total income for the assessment year 1967-6 ?' 2. The assessed, Mr. R. S. Garg, an individual, formerly worked for the World Health Organization. He retired on 1st May, 1964. During the year in question, which is the assessment year 1967-68, the corresponding previous year being the year ending 31st March, 1967, the assessed received an amount of Rs. 12928 as pension from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund ; in addition to this amount , his children Devised a benefit valued at Rs.13,500 from the same fund. He claimed that these amounts were exempt, as his sal...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Dewan Chand Dholan Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi657
Leila Seth, J.1. A common question of law arises in these two income-tax references as to whether occupation by the partners of a firm can be treated as occupation by the firm for its own residence. They are, thereforee, being disposed of together. Though the format of the question referred for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (1961 Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in each of the two cases is not exactly identical, the substance is the same. 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 87 of 1972, the question formulated is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in determining the income from the house property owned by the firm, a portion of which was occupied by its partners for their personal residence, a deduction was permissible under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. Whereas, the question in Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1974 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right...
R.C. Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Del)244; [1982]134ITR330(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. The question of law referred for our opinion at the instance of the assessed under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as under:'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and, on the facts of the case, in its conclusion that the 'building'in question was not includible in the term 'plant' and is not, thereforee, entitled to the allowance of development rebate ?' 2. The assessed is an individual carrying on the business of manufacture of saccharine and other allied Chemicals and essences under the name and style of M/s. R. C. Chemical Industries. He erected a new factory at the Okhla Industrial area, comprising of various buildings. In one of these buildings he installed machinery and plant for the manufacture of saccharine and other Chemicals. According to him, certain atmospheric controls, e.g., moisture, temperature and provision for filtered air, were required for the manufacture of saccharine. As such, he had constructed a building with particular specifications and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Minerals and Metals Trading Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi1a
S. Rangamathan, J.(1) These two references arise under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and involve the much debated question whether certain sums set apart by the respondent constituted 'reserves'within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act.(2) The assessed is a public sector corporation carrying on the business of import and export of minerals and metals. It is incorporated as a company under the Companies Act. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the assessed claimed that the following amounts which were shown in the balance sheet of the corporation for the relevant years as on 1/04/1965and 1/04/1966 respectively constituted reserves which should be added to the capital base of the company for determining the statutory deduction under The Act:As on As on 1-4-1965 1-4-1966 Rs. Rs.1. Staff Benefit Reserve 67,854 1,26,7222. Self-Insurance Reserve 7,08,696 14,98,8783. Staff Bonus Reserve Nil 13,31,893 THE Income-t...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1 Vs. Dewan Chand Dholan Dass an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: [1981]132ITR790(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.(1) A common question of law arises in these income-tax references as to whether occupation by the partners of a firm can be treated as' occupation by the firm for its own residence. They are, thereforee, being disposed of together. Though the format of the question referred for our opinion under section. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (1961 Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of income-tax in each of the two cases is not exactly identical, the substance is the same. (2) In Income-tax Reference No. 87 of 1972, the question formulated is: 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in determining the income from the house property owned by the firm, a portion of which was occupied by its partners for their personal residence, a deduction was permissible under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'Whereas, the question in Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1974 reads : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »