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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Del)343; ILR1982Delhi195; [1983]144ITR547(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. These are two income-tax reference pertaining to two individual partners of the firm known as M/s. Kundan Lal Madan La. The said firm was doing business in coal. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1966-67, the accounting period ending on 24th October 1965. Kundan Lal filed his return for this year on 26th February, 1971, and indicated therein an income of Rs,. 6,318. Madan Lal also filed his return on 26th February, 1971, and showed an income of Rs,. 5,818.2. On 20th March, 1971, the ITO completed the assessments of both the partners and computed a total income of Rs. 17,601 for Kundan Lal and Rs. 16,101 for Madan Lal. In these sums he included a capital gain of Rs. 5,190 in the case of each partner. This was as result of an enquiry made by the ITO. This enquiry had revealed that a property at Chandigarth, which stood in the joint names of the partners of the firm, M/s/. Kundan Lal Madan Lal, has been sold for a sum of Rs,. 30,000. This property has bee...
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Achal Kumar J ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Del)146; ILR1982Delhi939; [1983]142ITR606(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) The question referred for our opinion in these two income-tax references, at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-11, New Delhi is as follows : 'Whether on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in vacating the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax's direction to the Income-tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(a) and 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) The assessed an individual derived income from supplying boxes, crates and non-ferrous metals. He also had some other sources of income. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1964-65 and 1965-66, the relevant accounting years being the previous financial years. The assessed filed returns for these years in the status of a firm and declared an income of Rs. 5,449 in the first year and a loss of Rs. 15,122 in the next years. (3) As the Income-tax Officer felt that the firm was not genuine and registration had ...
Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1982
Reported in: (1984)7ITD778(Delhi)
1. The appeal is by the assessee, a public limited company. The assessment year involved is 1974-75 and the previous year ended with calendar year 1973. The assessment in the case of the assessee has been framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the grievance of the assessee are two-fold, viz. : (i) that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law to hold that only 80 per cent of the initial contribution made by the assessee to the management staff pension fund is allowable as deduction and not the whole of the actual contribution made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal ; and (ii) that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing expenses incurred by the assessee on the issue of bonus shares.2. As regards the first issue, viz., allowance of initial contribution made by the assessee to management staff pension fund, the material facts are that the assessee-company s...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. National Industrial Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1982
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas535(Delhi); [1982]137ITR586(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. 1. The assessed, M/s. National Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, is a private limited company dealing in alcohol. The assessment year under reference is 1964-65, and the relevant previous year is the financial year ending 31st march, 1964. 2. In the course of the assessment, the assessed claimed a development rebate under s. 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). This rebate was claimed as the assessed had installed fermentation tanks valued at Rs. 1,40,000. However, in the original profit and loss account drawn up for the year ending 31st March, 1964, no appropriation had been made for development re-enter reserve relating to those items. But after the accounts were audited in November, 1964, and placed before the general body of the shareholders it was resolved by them the such a provision should be made in the accounts of the year ending 31st March, 1964, itself. The auditor thereafter advised that it was not was not necessary to draw up a fr...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. National Industrial Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi21
Leila Seth, J. (1) The assesses M/s. National Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, is a private limited company deeling in alcohol. The assessment year under reference is 1964-65 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ending 31st March, 1964. (2) In the course of the assessment, the assesses claimed a development rebate under section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax, Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'). This rebate was claimed as the assessed had installed formentation tanks velued at Rs. 1,40,000. However, in the original profit and loss account drawn up for the year ending 31st March, 1964, no appropriation had been made for a development rebate reserve relating to these items. But after the accounts were audited in November, 1964 and placed before the general body of the shareholders it was resolved by them that such a provision should be made in the accounts for the war ending 31st March, 1964 itself. The auditor thereafter advised that it was not necessary to draw up a fres...
income-tax Officer Vs. Private Klinik Dr. Sachdev
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD275(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order dated 5-2-1981 of the AAC.2. 1975-76 is the assessment year concerned. Financial year is the previous year. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of two partners, both of them being medicos. Assessment was completed by the ITO as per order dated 30-3-1978, determining total income at Rs. 43,836.3. It is the first year of assessment. The assessee-firm had made up its accounts in such a way that whereas, in respect of receipts cash method was followed, in respect of outgoings or expenditure mercantile method was followed. The ITO concluded that by the said method, correct income of the assessee could not be deduced. The ITO proceeded to take into account cash receipts amounting to Rs. 1,30,409 and as regards expenditure, the ITO adopted the figure of Rs. 1,36,409 as expenditure, in place of the figure of Rs. 1,89,528 as worked out by the assessee according to mercantile method. Thus, in the assessment, a figure of Rs....
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Netar Krishana Sahgals ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Del)376; [1983]141ITR681(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. Two question of law have been referred to the High Court by the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A'. These read as under : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,01,779 was an admissible business expense (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in negating the Department's contention that the sum of Rs. 1,01,779 constituted income in the hands of the assessed ?' 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. The assessed entered into a sole selling agency agreement with M/s. Motors Instruments P. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') on April 1, 1960. The company was a manufacturer of meters. It was agreed between the parties that these meters would be sold though the sole selling agency of the assessed. The two relevant terms of the agreement between the parties read as under : 'The company will submit prices to the selling ...
Essco Sanitations Vs. Mascot Industries (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi308
G.C. Jain, J.(1) The main question for determination in this application under Order XXI. Rule 32, and s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is whether the mark 'OSSO' adopted by the respondents-judgment-debtors Is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark 'ESSCO' of the petitioners-decree-holders and amounts to disobedience of the decree for permanent injunction passed by this Court in favor of the petitioners against the respondents on July 30, 1980.(2) On February 14, 1980, the petitioners-decree-holders M|s. Essco Sanitations, brought a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining (1) the judgment-debtors, their servants, agents, representatives, dealers, workmen and all those acting for and on their behalf from infringing their registered trade mark No. 214447 by adopting and|or using the mark 'ESSO' and|or any other deceptively or confusingly similar mark which was an infringement of their registered trade mark 'ESSCO' in relation to brass cocks (sanitary and bath-...
Sanatan Dharam Sabha Vs. Johrimal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR512
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The question for decision in this revision is : Whether the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable. Briefly the facts are that Johri Mal Sharma, Plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from terminating his services and dispossessing him from the suit premises, alleging that he was appointed as Head Priest on 1.2.78 on a monthly salary ofRs.200- besides lodging and boarding by Mahavirji Trust, defendant No. 5-respondent No. 2, that he was performing his job to its satisfaction, that defendant No. 5 was the appointing authority, and Sanatan Dharam Sabba, Greater Kailash I, (defendant No. 1) its President, Secretary and Member defendants 2, 3 and 4 respectively with a view to appoint some one else as Head Priest were bent upon to level, false, baseless and defamatory allegtions and dispense his services, that defendant No. 1 was formed for constructing and completing the temple, that defendants 1 to 4 have no authority to term...
Salwan Public School, Etc. Vs. D.K. Dass, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi268
Avadh Behari Rohatagi, J. (1) The question raised in the petition has never yet, we believe, been decided and as it is of considerable importance, and has been fully argued before us, we think we ought not to delay giving our decision.(2) The question is this. By Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (Act No. 18 of 1973) the Admimstrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is empowered to constitute a School Tribunal to hear appeals. It is one mac: tribunal. Section Ii, in so far as it is material, is in these terms : 11(1) The Administrator shall, by notification, constitute a Tribunal, to be known as the 'Delhi School 'Tribunal', consisting of one person : Provided that no person shall be so appointed unless he has held office as a District Judge or any equivalent judicial office.(3) The respondent Mr. D. K. Dass. Indian Administrative Service . has been appointed as 'Delhi School Tribunal' under section 11. The petitioner, Salwan Public School, challenges his appointment an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »