Delhi Court September 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.
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Dyer's Stone Lime Co. ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR8(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. At the request of the Addl. CIT, the I.T. Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following two questions which arise out of the assessments of M/s. Dyer's Stone Lime Co. (P.) Ltd., for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-7 : 'Assessment year 1970-7 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 27,714 incurred by the assessed on the kilns this year would be covered by the term 'current repairs' occurring in section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment year 1971-7 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 23,977 incurred by the assessed on the kilns this year would be covered by the term 'current repairs' occurring in s. 31 (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The two questions arise in exactly similar circumstances. The assessed-company carries on the business of manufacture and sale o...
Mahesh Chander Vs. Dershan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT36; 1982RLR52
Sultan Singh, J.(1) Respondent field a suit for eviction of Anant Ram Khanna and Brothers from plot No. 59, Basti Ara Kashan Road, New Delhi, which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Delhi on 21.1.78. Mahesh Chander petitioner on 1.8.78 filed objections praying that the respondent be not allowed to execute the decree against him. His objections were dismissed on 6.7.79. The Court observed that no provision of law was cited by the objector in his objection petition, that O.21 R.99. and 101 was not applicable and that the objections fell under O.21 R.58 of the Code. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration on 7.7.79 for a decree that he was the owner of the plot in question and that the respondent was not entitled to dispossess him. The respondent in the written statement took an objection that the suit was not maintainable. Objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was also taken by the respondent. The Sub- Judge trying the suit returned the plaint for presentation to the proper ...
J.R. Sehgal Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT760(Del)
1. The Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Goa, vide their letter F. No. 5/3/70-Ral, dated 19-1-1970 intimated to the Delhi Office that one National T.V. set under C/N. No. 497414, dated 5-1-1970 was consigned by one Capt. V. K. Sehgal to Shri J. R. Sehgal, the petitioner, residing at Delhi. It was further intimated that Capt. V. K. Sehgal had not declared any T.V. Set on the Private Property List filed by him, nor was he signed off the Vessel. The letter requested that the T.V. set may be seized for carrying out further investigations in the matter. On 5th February, 1970 Shri Bhatnagar, Customs Inspector visited the residence of the petitioner for seizing the T.V. set. The dispute between the parties is whether this T.V. set was actually seized by Mr. Bhatnagar on the date or not. But it is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in the office of the Collector of Customs and gave an undertaking that he would not dispose of the same and would produce the same as an...
J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD977(Delhi)
1. As a result of a difference of opinion between the Members of the Allahabad Bench "A", who heard this appeal, the following question has been referred to me as third member, under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"): Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer reopening the case under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1958-59 2. The facts and material, which are relevant for this controversy, have been set out at very great length in the order of the Accountant Member as also that of the Judicial Member. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to repeat these, again, at any great length. Briefly stated, these facts are as follows: 3. The assessee, which is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of jute products, purchased certain items of machinery from a German firm of the name of Spinbau GMBH in 1957 for a pr...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Free Wheels India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Del)85; [1982]137ITR378(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. The assessed, Freewhells India Ltd., New Delhi, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1967-68 on 8th September, 1967. Under s. 140A of the Act, as it then stood, the assessed had to deposit the amount of tax payable on the basis of the return within 30 days of the filing of the return i.e., in the present case on or before the 7th October, 1967. The tax payable on the basis of the return was Rs. 7,39,939. As the assessed-company failed to pay the tax as the required by s. 140A(1), the ITO, after giving a notice to the assessed (for which there was no reply), imposed a penalty of Rs. 73,993. 2. The assessed preferred an appeal to the AAC and contended that the amount of tax could not be paid on account of the financial strigency of the company and that the penalty imposed was excessive. The appeal was dismissed by the AAC. 3. The assessed preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal it was contended that the ITO had not given the ...
New Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Del)297; [1983]140ITR132(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The question directed to be referred to this court under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, runs as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loss claimed by the assessed was a capital loss and not a revenue loss 2. As we shall point out a little later, the question that arises is some what different and it will be necessary for us to reframe the question and answer the real controversy between the parties. But before doing so, it is necessary to set out the facts. 3. The reference arises out of the assessment of the New Bank of India Ltd., for the assessment year 1956-57, in respect of which the relevant previews year was the calendar year 1955. During this year of account, the assessed sold premises No. 25 Pusa Road, New Delhi, which it owned, for a sum of Rs. 82,300 after deduction of brokerage. The assessed claimed that the loss of Rs. 67,969, incurred as a result of the sale, was al...
Surjeet Choudhary Vs. Rani Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi71; 1981(3)DRJ86
(1) That the disposal of an appeal against the ex-parte decree means disposal on merits for debaring the defendant/applicant from filing or continuing an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code . If an application for condensation of delay in filing appeal has not been accepted it means no appeal was preferred in law and dismissal of appeal as barred by time would not be disposal of appeal as contemplated under Explanationn to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code . In thi view of the matter it was held that the application filed by the appellant under Order Ix Rule 13 is maintainable. (2) Held further that the appellant is not to explain deligence during the whole period of limitation prescribed for appeal. The appellant is to explain his deligence from the last date of limitation till the date of filing the application /appeal. 1962 S.C. 361. (3) Dealing with the question whether there was sufficient cause for condensa...
Amar Parkash Sharma and ors. Vs. Parkashwati, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi143; 1981RLR673
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The appellants, Amar Parkash Sharma and his sister Amar Devi Challenge the judgment and order of the trial court granting Succession Certificate to Kumari Seema minor through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Parkash Wati in respect of the debts and securities of the deceased Ram Parkash Sharma. They also challenge the order refusing to grant the Succession Certificate to Amar Parkash Sharma, appellant in F.A.O. No. 236 of 1979. The brief facts arc as under : (2) Ram Parkash Sharma died on 9th January, 1976. His widow Smt. Chanan Devi an insane through her next friend Amar Parkash Sharma (appellant) on 17th February, 1976 filed an application for the grant of Succession Certificate in respect of debts and securities left by the deceased. On 23rd February, 1976 Parkashwati alleging herself to be the widow of the deceased and Kumari Seema minor daughter of the deceased filed another application for the grant of Succession Certificate. Chanan Devi widow unfortunate...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT417
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 23rd November, 1979. Learned counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by time. The certified copy of the Tribunal's judgment was applied on 6th December) 1979 and the same was ready for delivery on 5th March, 1980. The appeal wai listed for admission on 27th March, 1980, when it was adjourned to 18th April, 1980. On the later date the appeal was admitted and the appellant was directed to file the certified copy within time. In the application C.M. No. 3077 of 1981 under the proviso to section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant submits that the certified copy was sent by the Delhi Transport Corporation to its counsel on 18th March, 1981 but the clerk of the counsel Bhagwant Parshad instead of filing the same in court, placed the same in file and it remained lying i...
Centeral Distillery and Breweries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Excise ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT469; ILR1982Delhi205a
Sachar, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petition which had challenged the order of the Collector of Excise as well as of the Commissioner of Excise by which the later had ordered the blacklisting of the appellant for a period of 3 years. (2) The terms and conditions for grant of license for country liquor in the Union Territory of Delhi is governed by Punjab Excise Act read with Delhi Liquor license Rules, 1976 (to be called 1976 Rules). Rule 32 of the 1976 Rules provides for procedure in case the license is decided to be granted by tender. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of 1976 Rules provides that no tender shall be considered unless the earnest money as prescribed by the Excise Commissioner has been deposited in a Government Treasury or in State Bank of India in favor of the Excise Commissioner or Bank Draft or cash in currency notes is/are attached to each tender. In pursuance of this statutory power the Commissioner f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »