Delhi Court May 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. Rania Co-operative
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD662(Delhi)
1. This is a revenue's appeal against the order dated 14-1-1981 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, in Appeal No. 412 (Coys.Trust, Rtk.) of 1980-81.2. The only point which emanated from all the four grounds mentioned in the appeal is that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting a relief of Rs. 1,56,448 to the assessee's society under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') after setting aside the assessment order of the ITO dated 19-9-1980 denying the said relief to the assessee's society is not correct under law.3. The assessee is a co-operative society and for the assessment year 1977-78 for which the previous year ended on 30-6-1976, it had earned income from purchase and sale of foodgrains and commission from distribution of fertilisers. For the sake of brevity the assessee is called 'society' in the rest of this order. The society filed its income-tax return on 14-10-1977 declaring an income of Rs. 7,310. After verifying the accounts ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1982
Reported in: [1990]181ITR510(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The Tribunal has made a reference under section 266(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the Commissioner of Income-tax had applied for a reference regarding four questions of which three have been disallowed. The questions which have been disallowed are as follows : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 93,818 is not 'entertainment expenditure' disallowable under section 37(2B) (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that interest under section 216 could not be charged, without their giving a finding whether there was any reasonable cause on the part of the assessed in underestimating the advance tax payable by it and thereby reducing the amount payable in either of the first two Installments (iii) Whether on a correct interpretation of section 216, it can be said that, without establishing that the estimate o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Shambhu Ram Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1982
Reported in: [1982]138ITR373(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in I.T.Rs. Nos. 76 and 80 of 1975 and I.T.R. No. 46/77 and under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in W.T.Rs. Nos. 9 to 13 of 1975, an identical question in each case has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the will of L. Acharaj Ram dated October 28, 1963, the Tribunal was correct in holding that half share in the immovable property and shares in the company, etc., which devolved on the assessed on the death of his father were held by him in the capacity as karta of the HUF, consisting of himself, his wife and children and not in his individual capacity ?' 2. Shri Shambhu Ram Soni, the assessed, is an individual. He is one of the sons of Lala Acharaj Ram. Lala Acharaj Ram owned considerable self-acquired properties. He executed a will on October 28, 1963, in these words : 'THIS IS TH...
Smt. Kishan Devi Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD540(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal against the order dated 23-1-1980 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 83 of 1979-80. He had confirmed the decision of the GTO and dismissed the assessee's appeal filed before him. The facts leading up to the present appeal may be briefly stated as follows.2. The assessee Kishan Devi is the wife of one Bhagirath Mal. Kishan Devi and Bhagirath Mal had three sons, namely, Amar Nath, Jai Nath and Prem Nath. Bhagirath Mal died on 29-4-1953 leaving behind him his separate properties and also his widow and three sons as his heirs.Kishan Devi filed a suit on 18-3-1953 for partition and separate possession of her share of properties left behind by her husband. It was later numbered as Suit No. 156 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. While the suit was pending, a reference was made to arbitrators, Harichand and Hari Shankarlal through court on 16-10-1955. The arbitrators filed their award into the court. No objections were filed...
H.R. Khanna and ors. Vs. Krishan Wanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1982
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ322
(1) The appellant was served by publication and beat of drums. He made no appearance and an ex parte order of eviction was passed on 31.5 1974. Warrants of possession were taken out in October 1974 but they were resisted, by the occupants of the suit premises. The occupants were the brothers of the appellant. On 23rd April, 1975 the appellant filed the application dated 19th April, 1975 under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported by his affidavit for setting aside the order of eviction passed exparte, alleging that on 19th April, 1975 he came to know about the respondents having obtained the order of eviction ex parte against him, that he was never served, that he was not in Delhi when the service is said to have been effected on him. The application was dismissed by the Additional Controller on 3rd July, 1978. The appellant's appeal was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 8th January, 1979 holding that the application for setting aside the ex parte order ...
Santosh Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Bahadur Singh JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1982
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ377; 1982RLR672
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Mehboob Singh Jain, who died in 1957, was the common ancestor of the parties. He had four sons namely Mehtab Singh (defendant No. 4), Ranjit Singh, Bahadur Singh Jain (defendant No : 1) and Daryao Singh Jain (defendant No: 3). The plaintiffs are the sons of Mehtab Singh.(2) On 18.6.1942, Mehboob Singh executed a gift-deed of the property ' in fayour of Bahadur Singh defendant No: 1 on the next day a partition 'deed was executed between Mehboob Singh and his four sons resulting in partition of the several joint properties. Another partition deed was executed between them on 2nd October 1943. The result was the severance of Joint status between them as also division of joint properties.(3) 'A relinquishment-deed was executed by Mehboob Singh in favor Of his sons on 18.8.1944 relinquishing his rights in certain properties, in their favor.(4) Thereafter on 3 8.1953 Daryo Singh Jain defendant No : 3 executed a sale-deed of one of the properties got by him in favor of Smt....
Hukam Chand and Sons Vs. Sagar Silk and Sarees and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT196
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of theArbitration Act, 1940 is directed against the judgment and order of theSubordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 30.1.1980 setting aside the awarddated 18.8.1977 made by Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd).(hereinafter referrred to as 'the Association') awarding a total sum of Rs.15,999.80 on account of the balance price of goods, costs of proceedings andinterest up to 21.2,1977 besides future interest at 1.25 per cent per month tothe appellants against respondents No. 1 to 4.(2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant firm a registered partnership concern, carrying on cloth business at Delhi, is a member of DelhiHindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.), Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Respondents 1 to 4 purchased cloth on credit and a sum of Rs. 12,404.55 onaccount of balance of price of the goods besides interest and expenses remained due to the appellants. The goods were being sold on the credit memoissued by the appell...
Balraj Khanna (Represented by His Legal Representatives H.R. Khanna an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT165
Sultan Singh, J.1. The question in this second appeal is : Whether the order of eviction passed ex parte against the appellant is liable to be set aside? Briefly the facts are that on 2nd January, 1974 the respondents filed an application for eviction of. Bal Raj Khanna, appellant on grounds mentioned in Section 14(1) (b)(d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Summons was sent to him for 14th February, 1974 but it was not received back by the Controller and thereforee fresh summons was ordered to be issued for 19th March, 1974. Again it was not served and was received back with the remark that the appellant was out of station. The reports were made on 27th February, 1974 and 15th March, 1974. On 19th March, 1974 the Controller again ordered for the issue of summons in the ordinary manner as well as by Registered A.D. post for 6th May, 1974. Neither process fee nor registered cover was filed by the respondents. On 23rd March, 1974 an appli...
Purisons Auto Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD764(Delhi)
JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT--Rejection of ground of appeal by CIT(A).Computation of income on the basis of rejection of ground by CIT (Appeals) not justified.The assessment proceedings being quasi-judicial, if an assessment does not conform to the pronouncements of the courts, it has to be held that the assessment is bad in law. The assessment to be bad in law also involves the quantum involved in the assessment since quantum involves judicial discretion and in that view of the matter, procedural or other mere technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of justice. On the facts of the case, the assessment was not based on any material on record and simply because the assessee did not take a grammatically correct ground to agitate the quantum, the ground taken by it could not be brushed aside. The Income Tax officer should have conformed to the requirements of law while making a best judgment assessment. The Commissioner(Appeals) was not, therefore, justified in rejecting the assess...
Citibank N.A. Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi487; [1984]56CompCas509(Delhi)
Jain, J. 1. In this somewhat unusual suit, under O. 37 of the CPC, 1908, the plaintiff, Citibank N. A., seeks a decree of Rs. 77,10,733.67 against the defendant, Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (for short 'the Jute Mills'). 2. J. K. . (for short 'the .') has a cotton textile manufacturing unit in Kanpur. This company was incurring heavy losses. In order to render the said textile unit into an economic, profitable and efficient unit and for the purpose of modernising and/or equipping it with additional plant, etc., the . agreed to grant to the Jute Mills license to use the said textile unit on terms and conditions as contained in the license was granted initially for a period of five years commencing from October 1, 1971, on payment of license fee of Rs. 50,000 per month or a sum equal to 50% of the net profits earned by the Jute Mills in the textile unit in each year, whichever was higher. supplementary agreement was executed between the . and the Jute Mills on October 3, 1973, m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »