Delhi Court May 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Gagrat and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD284(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue objecting to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the ITO to grant registration to the assessee-firm under Section 185(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment year 1977-78.2. The assessee, Gagrat & Co., is a firm of lawyers practising at Delhi. It consists of the following five partners : This firm is evidenced by a deed of partnership dated 22-11-1976. The assessee applied for registration in Form No. 11 on 5-1-1977 on the strength of the above said partnership deed for the assessment year 1977-78 relevant for the previous year ended 31-3-1977. The ITO after examining the various clauses of the partnership deed came to the conclusion that the relationship of partnership was not intended to be brought about among the five partners and that, therefore, the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration. He was further of the view that the profits of the firm were also not distributed as specified in the...
Bela Singh Pabla Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD370(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, filed by the assessee, aground was raised at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal to the effect that the assessment made by the ITO under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), was illegal as he had submitted a draft assessment order under Section 144B to the I AC and completed the assessment in accordance with the directions issued by him. According to the assessee, the provisions of Section 144B are not applicable to an assessment made, pursuant to the provisions of Section 147.Considering the controversial nature of this contention, and the fact that certain Benches of the Tribunal have also accepted such a contention in certain cases, and also the far reaching importance of the decision on this issue, the Bench considered it desirable that the matter should be placed before a Special Bench of the Tribunal. On a reference being made by it under Section 255(3) of the Act, the President of the Tribunal has constituted this Spec...
Kapoor Sons and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: (1984)7ITD319(Delhi)
1. This appeal had been filed by the assessee and the first ground taken is that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 2,23,650 being the penalty imposed by the Enforcement Directorate.2. The assessee is a registered firm which was engaged in the exhibition of films in a cinema house known as 'Kamal Talkies'. On 2-10-1970 the assessee started a new venture under the name and style of International Ice Holiday. The said business was commenced after obtaining due approval of the concerned authorities and was set up in the plot owned by the LIC outside Connaught Circus, New Delhi. After running the show for a short period between 2-10-1970 to 9-11-1970, it had to be stopped under the orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The foreign artists employed by the assessee in running the venture were departed by the Government and proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) were also initiated by the Directorate of Enf...
Mohan Wahi Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation), New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2040
ORDER1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be succinctly stated as under :- On 16th August, 1976, Shri S. D. Prasad, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Govt. on India, handed over an important cabinet draft note for the selection and appointment of Mining Associate and Engineer contractor for the Kudremukh Iron Ore Project to Shri P. N. Chopra, Desk Officer for check up and making consequential changes and corrections. Shri Chopra placed the said document on his table. Rajinder Singh, accused in the instant case who was then working as Senior Private Assistant to Shri S. N. Acharaya, Joint Secretary, department of Steel, went to the room of Shri Chopra and had a cup of coffee. He then saw the said draft note. On return to his own room Shri Rajinder Singh asked Shri Hukam Chand, who was then working as Jamadar (Sweeper) under Shri S. N. Acharaya to remove the said draft note from the table of Shri P. N. Chopra. Accordingly at about 2.00 p.m. when Shri P. N. Ch...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. J.N. Gopal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR432(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The question sought to be referred at the instance of the Department in this application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the AAC's order directing the ITO to make two separate assessments for the two periods during which the assessed-firm continued its business under different partnerships ?' 2. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the Tribunal was wrong in refusing to make a reference as the question is a mixed question of law and fact. It is also pointed out that the view of this High Court in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. : [1975]98ITR571(Delhi) , has since been differed from by a Full Bench. 3. The relevant provision of law which applies to the present case is s. 187 or s. 188 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Where there is a change in the constitution of the firm, then under s. 187 the newly constituted firm has to be assessed, i.e., t...
Ram Kishan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi458; ILR1983Delhi962; 1982RLR622
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') the appellant. Ram Kishan Singh, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by Shri R. D. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 4th May, 1981, whereby he granted the application, of the respondent Savitri Devi, for permanent alimony under section 25 of the Act. (2) The facts leading to the filing of the petition by the wife under section 25 of the Act briefly are that a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Act was filed by the husband against the wife on 20th August 1977, on the ground that wife had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years. A decree in his favor under section 13(1)(ib) of the Act was granted on 9th May, 1979. (3) It is relevant to note that Smt. Savitri Devi had filed written statement contesting the petition under section 13 of the Act but later on absented herself and as such was proceeded ex parte. Another admitted...
V.K. Kumar Vs. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanga Than and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT18
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The question for decision in this Civil Revision and in Civil Revision Nos. 434 and 435 of 1982 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is : Whether respondent-defendant No. I is to be restrained from transferring the plaintiff petitioner in the three cases outside Delhi, during the pendency of the suits for declaration and injunction filed by them challenging the order of transfer? (2) Briefly the facts in C. R. No. 433 of 1982 are that defendant-respondent No. 1 Kendriya Vidhalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangathan') an autonomous body, was set up by the Ministry of Education and was registered as a society in 1965, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Sangathan at present is running 366 Kendriya Vidhyalayas (hereinafter referred to as 'K.V.') all over the country. The Sangathan has its own rules and regulations, contained in a book titled 'Education Code for Kendriya Vidhyalayas'. (3) The plaintiff was appointed as an Assista...
Punny Ram and ors. Vs. Chiranji Lal Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi431; 22(1982)DLT29b; 1982(3)DRJ342; 1982RLR576
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) These three appels have been placed before us on a refernce by a Division Bench of this Court. Some of the points in the three appeals are different but it is not necessary to deal with each one of them as the main point is common that alone turns the fate of these appeals. (2) The common point of law which arises for determination in these cases is with regard to the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This provision reads as under :- '(4)In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the Competent Authority shall take into account the following factors, namely:- (a) Whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted ; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas ; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribad.'The contentio...
Daya Wanti Punj and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi534; 22(1982)DLT26
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) In Lutyens's New Capital of Delhi, which he conceived and planned in the nineteen twenties he set apart areas for commercial purposes and residential purposes separately. Keeling Lane was a residential area in Sir Edwin Lutyens's architectural plan. After independence it was renamed as Tolstoy Marg after the famous Russian novelist. This case is concerned with a building situated at 9, Tolstoy Marg. (2) In 1961 the Master Plan, a statutory plan under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, was published by the Delhi Development Authority. This plan modified in many ways the ruling conception and design of Lutyens's New Delhi. The plan is based on 'land use.' Some land previously used for residential purpose was declared as commercial. Tolstoy Marg was declared a commercial area. In 1966 a zonal plan for this area was published. (3) The petitioners are the lessee of 9 Tolstoy Marg. There is a lease deed dated 19th March- 1931 between the Secretary of State for India...
Pritam Pal Singh Vs. V.P. Raman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT27
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a second appeal by the lanadlord and is directed against the order of Rent Control Tribunal dated 18-11-1974 setting aside the order of ejectment dated 4-10-1973 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in favor of the appellant and thereby dismissing the ejectment application filed by the landlord on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement of the premises in dispute.(2) This appeal is an instance of how tortuous delay in the process of court can work injustice.(3) The petition for ejectment itself was filed by the appellant as far back as 2nd August, 1972 on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the appellant. The premises in dispute of which the ejectment was sought is a residential house No. C-27, Lajpat Nagar Iii, New Delhi. The application itself was filed on the simple ground that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family dependent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »