Delhi Court April 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
income-tax Officer Vs. D.N. Dhingra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD458(Delhi)
1. The appeal by the revenue, and the cross-objection by the assessee, Shri D.N. Dhingra of Agra, an individual, arising out of the order of the AAC, Agra, dated 4-12-1981, are consolidated, heard together, and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The year of assessment involved is 1977-78 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1977.3. The assessee was at one time working as an agent with Norwich Union Life Insurance Society. After life insurance was nationalised in the country, the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) came into existence under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The assessee vide agreement dated 10-1-1957 was continued as an agent of LIC on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Act. A copy of the said agreement has been produced before me. Admittedly, the assessee in the year under consideration retired as an agent of the LIC. On his retirement the assessee was paid by way of gratuity an amount of Rs. 20,609. This payme...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Del)29; ILR1982Delhi913
Leila Seth, J. 1. This income-tax reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion is as follows : 'Whether the Tribunal was justified, on the facts of the case, in holding that the amount of Rs. 58,175 credited to the profit and loss account could not be included in the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. These are the facts : M/s. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., the assessed, is a company which was incorporated on September 27, 1942. It is carrying on the business of financing. Some time after its incorporation, Bharat Bank Ltd., (the original name of the assessed till February 26, 1952), gave loans amounting to Rs. 58,175 to five parties in Lahore. After the partition of the sub-continent of India into India and Pakistan in 1947, these amounts were transferred to the books of the assessed in India. These amounts were written off and allowed in the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 (wrongly noticed as 1945 in t...
Escorts Farms (Ramgarii) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Del)170; ILR1982Delhi778; [1983]143ITR749(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) These two income-tax references at the instance of the assessed pertain to assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the relevant previous years having ended on 30th June, 1966 and 30th June, 1967 respectively. (2) M/S. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd., New Delhi, the assessed, is a private limited company. It derives income from investments, agriculture and brick kiln business. (3) On 1st August, 1965 the assessed sold 15,000 shares of Escorts Ltd. and declared a capital gain of Rs. 2,418 for the assessment year 1967-68. During the next assessment year the assessed sold 5000 shares on 31st January. 1967 and another 10,000 shares on 1st March, 1967 of the same company and declared a capital gain for that year of Rs. 11,700. The assessed worked out the capital gain by deducting the actual price paid at the time of purchase from the sale price. The assessed ignored the fact that it had also received bonus shares issued by Escorts Ltd. (4) With regard to the shares sold the Inc...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR47(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) This Income-tax Reference is at theinstance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The questionreferred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for ouropinion is as follows : 'WHETHERthe Tribunal was justified on, the factsof the case in holding that the amount ofRs. 58,175 credited to the profit and loss account could not be included in the assessmentyear 1967-68?' (2) These are the facts. M/s. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. the assessed, is a company which was incorporated on 21/09/1942. It is carrying on the business of financing.Sometime after its incorporation, Bharat Bank Limited (theoriginal name of the assessed till 26/02/1952)save loans amounting to Rs. 58,175 to five parties inLahore. After the partition of the sub-continent of India intoIndia and Pakistan in 1947 these amounts transferrd to thebooks of the assessed in India. These amounts were writtenoff and allowed in the assessment years 1918-19 and1949-50 (wrongly noticed on 1945 in'the Tribunal's order)Later in 1950 these...
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Shama Engine ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi925; [1982]138ITR216(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) These six income-tax references at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, pertain to the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1972-73. The point in issue in each of them pertains to the question of doductibility of royalty. The question posed for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (to be referred to in short as the 'the Act',) in the first of the two years is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the royalty amounts paid by the assessed to the foreign collaborators for the assessment years 19.65-66 and 1966-67 were of revenue nature ?'(2) The question posed in the subsequent three years is identical except that the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 have been inserted in place of 1965-66 and 3966-67. The question posed for the year 1972-73 is substantially the same, though sightly differently worded and is set out:WHETHERon the facts a...
The Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Reward Soap Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi286; 1982(3)DRJ399; 1982RLR618
H.L. Anand, J.(1) Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., plaintiff, in a suit based on infringement of trade marks, copyrights, passing off and for rendition of accounts of profits, seeks to restrain the defendant, during the pendency of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in washing soaps under the trade marks 501, 507 or any other deceptively similar trade mark and wrappers as arc identical with or deceptively similar to the wrappers of the plaintiff's 501 half bar washing soap and from inflinging the registered trade marks and copyright and from passing off its washing soap and business as washing soap and business of the plaintiff.(2) The suit is grounded on the allegations that the plaintiff has, inter alia, been producing and marketing half bar washing soap under the trade mark 501 since over 40 years and the mark has acquired a unique and enviable reputation partly on account of extensive advertisement and publicity and partly on account of the...
B.D. Mehra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD20(Delhi)
1. All the four appeals are by the assessee, the assessment years involved are 1968-69 to 1971-72. The impugned order dated 26-12-1980 was made by the Commissioner (Appeals)-X, New Delhi and is a common one in repect of all the years under appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalties imposed upon the assessee for all the years. The assessee is aggrieved and, hence, these appeals.2. Since the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is a common one, more so, we having been addressed in one set by both the learned representatives of the parties and a common paper book having been filed, for and on behalf of the assessee, as of necessity and for the sake of convenience, at our level also, we are disposing of all these appeals by this common order.3. The material facts briefly stated are, that the assessee filed the returns of income for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 on 1-12-1972, 1-12-1972, 7-2-1973 and 7-2-1973, respectively, as aga...
Narender Kaur Vs. Pritam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR428
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Appellant obtained a decree for judicial separation u/s 10(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 30.9.77 from the Court of Additional D.J. She thereafter filed an application for permanent alimony u/s 25 of the Act and-also an application for litigation expenses and maintenance. The respondent filed his w/s and reply to the application. On 13.4.1977 the proceedings were transferred to another ADJ. Counsel for the parties appeared before the transferee court and the proceedings were adjourned for arguments presumably on the application for litigation expenses to 21.5.79. There was no appearance on behalf of the appellant on 21.5.1979 and thereforee, her petition u/s 25 of the Act was-dismissed. (2) On 3.7,1979 the appellant made an application for restoration of the proceedings under the Act alleging that her counsel suffering from severe allergic symptoms, that before the date fixed her counsel had made an application to the Court that she would not be in a position to...
Bakhtawar Singh Balkrishan Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi201
H.L. Anand, J.(1) Whether the Union could be said to be 'carrying on business', within the meaning of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the principal seat of the Central Government, in New Delhi so as to give territorial jurisdiction to this Court to entertain proceedings on an arbitral award made in the dispute arising in connection with the execution of civil work for modernisation and augmentation of an ordnance factory, is the only question that calls for decision at the present stage of the proceedings.(2) Plaintiff prays for a decree in terms of the Award. made on October 28, 1980, by Brig. Joginder Singh, in the dispute between the plaintiff and the Union, arising out a contract entered into between them in connection with the execution of civil work for modernisation and augmentation of an ordnance factory at Moradnagar. The contract between the parties was admittedly executed at Barreily and the work was to be executed at Moradnagar, both within the State of Uttar ...
Jag Jit Kaur Vs. Mool Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT154; 1982(3)DRJ244; 1982RLR421
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The question for decision in this second appeal is whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Briefly the facts are that Hardit Singh, predecessor of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 was inducted as a tenant in two rooms with two front verandahs, latrine and open court-yard at 118-B Kalkaji, New Delhi on a monthly of Rs.40.00 excluding other charges in June, 1955. Mool Chand respondent No. 1 on 1st October, 1971 filed an application for the eviction of Hardit Singh, tenant under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him, that he was the owner tliereof having no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, that he had been ordered to vacate the railway quarter No. 25-E/A, Subzi Mandi, Delhi by the concerned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »