Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)13ITD478(Delhi)
1. This batch of appeals is by the revenue and since common issues are involved in relation to all the years and since we have been addressed in one set by both the parties, more so, common paper books and written notes having been placed on our file, as of necessity and for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. The assessment years involved being 1974-75, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively, the accounting periods ended with 30-4-1973, 30-4-1974, 30-4-1976 and 30-4-1977. The assessments for all the years have been framed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The respondent assessee is a resident private limited company and in the assessment orders for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the status shown is non-industrial company while for the other two assessment years the status shown is private limited company only.3. Common issue involved for all the years is that on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1986Delhi140; 26(1984)DLT364
Avadh Behari, J.(1) These are two appeals from the orders of the Additional District Judge. In R.F.A. No. 54 of 1980 the impugned order was passed on 22-12-1979. In R.F.A. No. 378 of 1980 the impugned order is dated 6th June, 1980. As the point is common in both the appeals we have taken these matters together. (2) The land of the appellants in village Ghazipur was acquired by the. Government pursuant to a notification dated 13-11-1959 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act). The declaration under section 6 was issued on 20-6-1966. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 27-D/70-71). He divided the land into two blocks-block A and block B. Block A he valued at Rs. 750.00 per bigha. In block B he put that land from which earth had been dug. Consequently he valued it at Rs. 500.00 per bigha. On a reference under section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge in the case of Pritam Singh & others (R.F.A. No. 54 of 1980) dismissed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi472; 26(1984)DLT341
Avadh Behari, J. (1) Once more we arc face to face with the question : whether under the Rent Act the heirs of the tenant have any right to remain in occupation of the premises after the death of the tenant? The Facts (2) These are the Tacts. One Faqir Chand was the tenant of the first and second floor of property bearing Municipal No. 3393 owned by the respondent landlord Lakshmi Narain Bansal ' He was paying Rs. 44 per month as rent and Rs. 6 on account of water charges. The landlord sent a registered notice dated 25-10-69 to him terminating his tenancy by the end of November 1969. This notice was served on him. The tenant died on 5-12-1969 leaving behind 4 sons, 2 daughters and a widow. In February 1970 the landlord brought a suit for possession against the heirs. The suit was decreed by the learned subordinate judge. From his order dated 29-7-1978, the sons and daughters of the tenant appeal to this Court. The widow had died during the pendency of the suit. (3) The landlord claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1985Delhi359; 1986LabIC30; 1984(2)SLJ634(Delhi)
Yogeshwardayal, J.(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a Writ of mandamus to be issued by directing the appropriate Government to re-consider its decision in the light of provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to make a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. This relief is sought after quashing the order of the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, Delhi, dated 20th February, 1981, whereby the Delhi Administration did consider the disputes between Shri Ram Kishan (petitioner herein) and the Management of the Delhi Transport Corporation (respondent No. 2) as not fit one for reference to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court for adjudication and a subsequent order dated 20th September, 1983 staling that the Government 'found no ground which may warrant review of its earlier for decision dated 20th September, 1983 stating that the Government found no the reason given for not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(21)ELT159TriDel
1. In all these four appeals the subject-matter is identical, the parties are the same and hence we are disposing of all these appeals by this commoner order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that M/s. New India Industries Bombay (hereinafter called the respondents) imported and cleared four consignments of photographic materials under Bills of Entry Cash No. 4279 dated 21-4-1979, No. 5470 dated 26-4-1979, No. 1108 dated 5-4-1979 and 1795 dated 8-3-1979 on payment of basic customs duty, auxiliary duty and c.v. duly.3. At the time of their import, i.e. when the goods entered the territorial waters of India, these goods were exempt from payment of c.v. duty vide exemption Notification No. 364, dated 2-8-1976 but the exemption notification was rescinded by subsequent Notification No. 63, dated 1-3-1979 and thus in effect c.v. duty became chargeable on these goods w.e.f. 1-3-1979. As the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse after 1-3-1979, so th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1984Delhi627
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) On May 29, 1982 Shri R. C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicted the appellants Gurcharan Singh alias Billa and his two sons Kuldip Singh and Attinder Singh in respect of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. on account of murdering one Kuldip Singh son of Gurmukh Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) at Basti Harphool Singh in the evening of May 1, 1979. He 'also convicted the aforesaid appellants except Attinder Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the same date, on charge of murder, by means of a separate order, each of the aforesaid appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, Gurcharan Singh and Kuldip Singh appellants were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1985CriLJ210; 1984(3)Crimes205; 2003(7)DRJ281; 1984RLR639
ORDER1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition succinctly are that on 24th August 1983 the petitioner - Amar Singh made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, for initiating proceedings under S. 145 of Cr.P.C. (for short the Code). He, inter alia, alleged that he was owner of plot No. 1598, measuring 235 sq. yards, at Basti Bhoop Singh, Nangal Raya, New Delhi. The accommodation in the said plot comprised a room 10' x 8' and some tin sheds besides open space and the boundary wall. He contended that the aforesaid room had been let out to one Ramesh Kumar while the rest of the plot including the tin sheds remained in his (petitioner's) exclusive and actual physical possession. Ramesh Kumar died about a year prior to making of the application and thereafter the respondents Karan Singh and his son Trilok Chand illegally took possession of the said room without permission or consent of the petitioner. So, he tried to get the room vacated from respondents 1 & 2 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1984(7)DRJ242
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 19-5-1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi. Predecessor of the respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for evicting the petitioner from one room and verandah of the property in dispute. The predecessor of the respondent died during the pendency of the petition and his -legal representatives were brought on the record. The case of the respondent- landlord was that they had a large family consisting of the landlord owner besides his wife, 9 daughters and two sons with their families.' In all they had three rooms in their possession which were insufficient for their residence. It was also alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes. (2) The petition was contested by the tenant. It was pleaded that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purpose. The petition had been filed with mala fide object of incr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1985(8)DRJ278
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 162/84 Jagdish Kaur v. Hari Singh and Civil Revision No. 263 of 1984 Hari Singh v. Jagdish Kaur since both these petitions have arisen out of the same order. (2) The parties to these petitions were married long time back. The wife gave birth to four children-three sons and one daughter. The parties are, admittedly, living separate since 1969. The husband Sardar Hari Singh retired as Chief Engineer in the year 1977. In 1980 the husband filed a petition against the wife for divorce on the ground of cruelty etc. The wife filed an; application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The wife claimed a sum of Rs. 3000.00 per month as maintenance and Rs. 5000.00 as litigation expenses. The application was opposed by the husband who asserted that the wife is in possession of large income and he claimed a maintenance of Rs. 1000.00 from the wife. The learned tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)11ITD180(Delhi)
1. The appeal is by the revenue and following specific grounds have been raised before us: 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting Rs. 66,040 received from the superannuation fund at the time of resignation from Tata Iron & Steel Company. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order being erroneous may be set aside and that of the ITO be restored.2. The reasoning of the assessing officer vide assessment order, dated 31-3-1982, reads as under: During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had received Rs. 66,040 from the superannuation fund during the year. The facts of the case are that the assessee was in service with TISCO up to May 1976. He resigned from there and joined Modi Steels. The assessee was a member of an approved superannuation fund while in service with TISCO. The pensionary claims under the fund were operated by the LIC up to 1-4-1972 and after that by the trustees of the fund. As the assessee resigned from...
Tag this Judgment!