Delhi Court March 1982 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-iii Vs. Jyoti Prashad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR570(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in connection with the present application for reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which relates to the assessment year 1971-72, and the arises, (a) on the substantive assessment of the assessed, and (b) from an order imposing a penalty against the assessed. The facts of the case are that some watches were seized by the Customs authorities and they were being smuggled by a the German National. It was claimed in the proceedings before the Customs officials that the smuggling was done or attempted at the instance of the assessed; the assessed, however, denied this fact and the ownership of the watches was also not claimed by him. In these proceedings, the watches were confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed against the assessed which is still under challenged in proceedings under the Customs Act. The ITO had added Rs. 1,10,000 to the assessed income on smuggling business. This was reduced on appea...
Smt. Phool Sabharwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-v, New Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: [1983]141ITR774(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The petitioner filed this application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, seeking a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order passed in relation to the assessment year 1972-73 on March 11, 1981. The order refusing to make a reference under s. 256(1) was passed on July 30, 1980. The limitation period prescribed by sub-s.(2) of s. 256 of the Act is six month from the date on which the assessed or the Commissioner is served with a notice of the refusal to state a case to the High Court. According to the application filed for condoning the delay, which is C.M. No. 1292/81, the petitioner was served on August 24, 1980, and hence if this is correct, the limitation period would expire on February 23, 1981. The Explanationn for the delay is that record clerk of M/s. K. A. Sethi, advocate, wrongly calculated the limitation period to expire on March 11, 1981, 'instead of February 11, 1981', and hence was belated. The applicant claimed that the delay was not on ...
The Refugee Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Harban Singh BhasIn ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi335; 22(1982)DLT87; 1982(3)DRJ280; ILR1982Delhi1a
(1) For a case to be covered under section 54 of the Act, three conditions precedent must be fulfillled before any of the parties could invoke the jurisdiction of the Registrar and call upon him to entertain a complaint. The first condition is that there must be a dispute. Secondly, the dispute must be touching the constitution or business of a society. The term is wide enough and would include the dispute affecting the business of the society or relating to the business of the society. The third condition is that it must arise between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member or between members or past members or persons so claiming and any officer, agent or servant of the society past or present or between the society or its committee, and any officer, agent, member or servant of the society past or present. The language of the section indicates that the complaint has to be made by one of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar and...
Darshan Kapur Vs. Tilak Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR516
D.R. Khanra, J.(1) This is an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, seeking reference of the disputes interse parties arising under a partnership deed dt. 86.79 to arbitration. So far as the execution of the partnership deed, the parties entering into partnership and the running of the partnership business, there is no dispute. Clause 15 of the deed was : 'THAT all disputes which may arise amongst the partners or their legal heiis about the interpretation of this deed or their rights and liabilities there under or in relation to any other matter what-soever touching the partnership firm shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act.'(2) According to the petitioner, she invested Rs. 4,60,000.00 in the partnership business. Nothing has, however, according to her, been returned to her, nor the accounts of partnership rendered. (3) The respondent has on his part, stated that the investment of the petitioner was of Rs. 2,70,000.00 only. He further adds th...
Man Singh Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD741(Delhi)
1. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the common order of the AAC objecting to the inclusion of the value of a house situated at Jhinjhana Road, Shamli, standing in the name of his wife Smt. Lahar Kaur, towards the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73.2. During the wealth-tax assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1970-71, the WTO came to know through the Survey Report of his Inspector that the assessee constructed a house at Jhinjhana Road, Shamli, in the name of his wife, Smt. Lahar Kaur, and that the said house was let out to NCC at a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The WTO recorded the statement of the assessee on this point on 30-1-1976. In his statement, the assessee stated that his wile purchased a plot of land for Rs. 5,000 in the year 1963 and constructed a house on the said plot during the years 1963 to 1965 and spent a sum of Rs. 20,000. It was stated that the above investment of Rs. 20,000 was made up partly out o...
Daga Commercial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2142(Del)
1. The petitioner, M/s Daga Commercial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., has its head office at Bombay and a Branch in Delhi. It has been carrying on business as merchants and commission agents in bullion and silver for quite a long time. According to the petitioner it has had a clean record and it has not been involved at any time previously in any case of smuggling or transportation of contraband gold. 2. On 30-8-1956 the assessed booked from Delhi one parcel of gold with zinc as ballast. The gold was in 32 pieces and the total weight was 457 tolas 1 masha and 3 rattis. The parcel of the gold was delivered to the Railways at Delhi for being carried to the petitioner's head office at Bombay. To forwarding note submitted to the Railway Authorities made it clear that the contents of the parcel were gold bars. However, before the gold was actually transported officers of the Central Excise Department detained the parcel and took charge thereof at the Delhi Railway Station. This was on the evening o...
Roop Devi Vs. Sultan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ443; 1982RLR687
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) APPELLANT'S husband owned suit property. It died on 27-2-42 leaving behind appellant and 3 sons. They partitioned the property. The share which appellant got, it was said that she was owner for life only. After the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she in 1958 applied to Mcd that she had becomes full owner of her share and her name be also mutated. It was allowed. Her similar request to Dda was rejected. She in 1967 sued Dda & Ors. for declaration which was decreed. In 1971, heirs of one of the sons brought a suit that appellant was a limited owner and on her death they would inherit the property. Suit was dismissed in 1973 and appeal against same is pending. In 1975 appellant sued heirs of Murarilal for possession for portion of her property in their possession. Appellant died during pendency of suit and on the basis of a will, her L R's were brought on record. The defendants, contention was that appellant had not become full owner. Issues framed wer...
Shanti Devi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi453; 21(1982)DLT404; 1982(3)DRJ207
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Shri Gopal Singh was aretired judge of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana He was a bachelor. He had no issue. He founded a charitable trust called Gopal Singh Trust. He executed a deed of trust on 11.10.1973 which was subsequently altered in some respects by another trust deed dated 30.6.75. The deed recites that the trust is created 'with a view to promote charitable objects such as health and medical facilities education & training of boys and girls and adults for acquisition of knowledge and development of character so as to make them healthy and educated citizens, for amelieration and uplift of backward and poverty- stricken people of India, for international good will and understanding and for bettering the lot of women and children.'(2) The trust deed provides that the founder shall be the administrator and manager of the trust and will be remunerated with Rs. 1600.00 per month. After his death the trust shall be managed by a trustee o...
Jawahar Lal Vs. Competent Authority (i.A.C.), Range Ii, New Delhi, and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT51
Goswamy, J.1. This petition, under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the notice dated July 26, 1979 (annex. 'L'), issued under s. 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for quashing the directions issued y the Commissioner of Income-tax to that effect. 2. The petitioner along with respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 purchased property bearing No. XIV-219, Gali Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, by a sale deed dated November 20, 19978, for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000. The sale deed was registered on November 28, 1978. The property was purchased from a charitable trust known as Sethani Indermani Jatia Charitable Trust, having its office at Seth Ganga Sagar-ki-kothi, Junction Road, Khurja, Uttar Pradesh. Before selling the property, the trustees of the said trust filed an application under s. 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, in the court of the district judge. The district judge, vide his order dated February 24, 1978, allowed the application and observed : '...
Swastika Metal Works Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT272
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The petitioner, M/s. Swastika Metal Works, is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture of copper alloys in its factory at Jagadhari in the State of Haryana. The petitioner imports for the purpose of its manufacture copper ingots from places outside Ind (2) On 28.2-1966 the Central Governmentssued a notification under Rule S. (1) of the Central Excise Rules. By this notification the Central Government exempted sheets and circles of copper and copper alloys produced by a manufacturer on a rolling mill and issued there from in untrimmed condition, from so much of the duty of excise livable thereon as is in excess of (a) Rs. 425 per metric tonne if made from metal in a crude form which has already paid duty under sub-item (1) at the rate of Rs. 1.000.00 per metric tonne, or from old scrap of copper and copper and copper alloys, or from scrap obtained from virgin metal where the appropriate amount of duty had already been paid on such metal; and (b) Rs. 1,350.00 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »