Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 108 results (0.015 seconds)D.L.F. United (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Del)356; [1986]159ITR339(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. These two, references (Nos. 217 and 218 of 1975) have been made under the orders of this High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions directed to be referred are in two sets :(a) in I.T.C. No. 29 of 1973 : '1. Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to justify the finding that profit of Rs. 2,10,000 made by Raisina Cold Storage and Ice Co. Limited was the assessed's income ? 2. Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to justify the finding that the payment of Rs. 41,039.67 made to Surjit Singh, Sham Singh and Rajinder Singh was the assessed's income and was rightly taxed as such in its hands ? 3. Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to justify the finding that the sum of Rs. 3,78,329 was the income of the assessed liable to tax as such ? 4. Whether, in any view of the matter, the sum of Rs. 3,78,329 was the assessed's income during the relevant year ending on October 31, 1960 ? 5. Whether there was any e...
Tag this Judgment!Time Properties and Promoters Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi317; 28(1985)DLT133; 1985RLR398
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st February, 1984 requiring the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint. Briefly these are the facts. On 12th November, 1982 the petitioner-plaintiff made a bid of Rs. 24,95,000.00 for acquiring commercial Plot No. 5, measuring 243 sq. meters in the Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi at a public auction held by the Delhi Development Authority, defendant respondent and he was declared to be that highest bidder. He paid a sum of Rs. 6.50,0001- as earnest money by cheques which were encashed. The defendant by letter dated 24th March, 1983 accepted the bid of the plaintiff and required him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 18,45,050.00 within 45 days thereafter. The plaintiff by letter dated 7th May, 1983 requested the defendant to grant extension of time for a period of three months. By letter dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ147
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioner has been an Upper Division Clerk as a Civilian in the Western Command of Ministry of defense, Government of India, New Delhi. He was last serving under Chief Engineer, Defendant No. 2 at Delhi. On 24th October, 1967 he proceeded on leave and according to him while he was in bed on medical leave he received one movement order dated 9th November, 1967 informing him that he had been transferred from Delhi to Nasirabad under the Garrison Engineer, Nasirabad, defendant No. 3. The petitioner challenged the movement order on various grounds and filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants-respondents to allow him to join his duties at Delhi office of the Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone, Delhi Cantt. defendant No 2. The suit was dismissed on 3rd October, 1977 by the trial court. The petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before the Addl. District Judge. (2) During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Prakash Vs. Ganeshi Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT235; 1985RLR402
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1982 of the Addl. Rent Controller dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and passing an order for his eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. (2) Briefly these are the facts. The respondent-landlady filed a petitioner for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It has been alleged that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, bath, toilet, balcony with right to use the stair case and open space on first floor in House No. B-39, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 ; the respondent is the owner ; the premises were let for residential purposes and the same are required bona fide for her residence and for the residence of her family members dependent upon her and she has no other reasonably suitabl...
Tag this Judgment!D. L. F. United (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. (No. 2).
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Del)7; [1986]159ITR353(Delhi); [1986]24TAXMAN684(Delhi)
D. K. KAPUR J. - The questions referred to us in this reference have already been set out in the judgment in I.T.R. No. 217 of 1975 (supra p. 339). For convenience, they are repeated again. They are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was justified (2) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, while levying penalty, the tax sought to be evaded is to be calculated by including in the income returned the amounts shown in Part F of the return (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for calculation of penalty, the item of Rs. 3,78,329 has to be disregarded as being income not liable to be returned (4) Whether, on the facts and. in the circumstances of the case, for purpose of calculation of penalty, assessed income has to be modified by making suitable adjustment in the valu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. W.L. Kohli and Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]165ITR492(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. We have to deal with four connected petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relate to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. These four references have arisen because there were two appeals by M/s. W. L. Kohli & Co. before the Tribunal and also two appeals by Shri W. L. Kohli, as an individual, for these two assessment years. The appeals were directed against an order passed in respect of M/s. W. L. Kohli & Co., for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 2. The background of the case was that the Income-tax Officer had treated M/s. W. L. Kohli & Co. as a registered firm and assessed the firm to an income of Rs. 43,247 for the assessment year 1960-61 and to an income of Rs. 1,78,234 for the assessment year 1961-62. The registration was granted under section 183(b) of the Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice on the ground that the order was preju...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Bhai Sunder Dass and Sons P. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]158ITR195(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in relation to the assessment year 1969-70 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 87,200 made by the assessed company to M/s. K. Laier A. G. Switzerland in terms of the collaboration agreement constitutes revenue expenditure or capital expenditure ?' 2. The facts of the case show that the assessed which is a private limited company paid a sum of Rs. 87,200 to its collaborator, a Swiss firm. The agreement between the parties was in the form of a license contract. According to the Income-tax Officer, the payment was of capital nature. The assessed appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who was of the view that the decision in Ciba's case [1968] 69 ITR 692, was distinguishable. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, it was held that no sale of an asset was involved. Some technical information and knowledge available to the Sw...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari Lal Vs. Pushpa Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT206
G.C. Jain, J.(1) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated February 16, 1982. This order would dispose both these appeal S A.O 206/82 (Behari Lal v. Pushpa Devi and another). (2) On November 16. 1973 Behari Lal brought an application for recover of the possession of a shop measuring 18 ft. x 19 ft. bearing municipal No. 725/1, .Jheel Kurenja. Patparganj Road. Delhi The case set out by him was that the shop had been let out to Smt. Pushpa Devi on June 1 1971 on a monthly rent of Rs. 125.00 . She had sub let. assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the shop to Devi Dayal without his consent in writing. (3) Pushpa Devi was proceeded exparte. The petition was resisted by Devi Dayal who contended that the land on which this shop had been built belonged to DDA. The construction had been made by him and he was in possession of the shop in his own right as an owner. The pleas regarding letting to Pushpa Devi or sub letting by her to him were fa...
Tag this Judgment!P. Moidu Haji and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1430
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. This judgment disposes of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 63 of 1985, 64 of 1985 and 65 of 1985. The common question which arises for consideration (in) each of the petitions is : Whether the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation against the impugned detention order and thus the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution was denied to him. The main plea is that in the grounds of detention, documents which have been relied upon by the detaining authority in each of the three cases not having been supplied to the detenus even on a specific request for supply of the same, they were not afforded the right of making the representations against the detention orders as envisaged in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and hence their continued detention, is vitiated.2. To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to notice a few facts. In Criminal Writ No. 63 of 1985 the detenu P. Saidalavi Haj...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Jagmohan Saran Kailash Chandra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD384(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the department and the cross-objection thereto by the assessee arise out of the order dated 24-1-1984 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly.2. The assessee is a HUF (specified). The main question involved is, whether the assessment order passed by the ITO on 19-7-1983 was within time or it was time barred. In that connection, the following dates are relevant. 31-3-1982 - date on which the draft assessment order prepared by the ITO. 8-4-1982 - date of service of the draft assessment order on the assessee. 13-4-1982 - date of objections filed by the assessee to the draft assessment order. 15-4-1982 - date on which the draft assessment order was forwarded by the ITO to the IAC along with the assessee's objections.The ITO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 20,01,840 after making certain additions which it is not necessary to specifically deal with here. Against the said assessment, the assessee came up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)....
Tag this Judgment!