Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 108 results (0.021 seconds)income-tax Officer Vs. General Metal Works
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD438(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the department pertaining to the assessment year 1979-80.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It derives income from manufacture and sale of stainless steel utensils and underground water handpumps. The assessee had obtained overdraft facilities from the bankers by way of hypothecation of stocks both at the branch as well as at the head office. The head office was at Bulandshahr and branch office was at Delhi. The assessee had furnished stock statement to the bankers as on 28-2-1979 showing stainless steel utensils weighing 2,300 kgs. and stainless steel sheets at 180 kgs. This comprised of the stocks of the assessee at the head office as well as at the branch office at Delhi. The ITO during the course of assessment proceedings found that there was wide difference between the details furnished by the bank and the stock as on 28-2-1979. The main difference was in the items of stainless steel sheets and stainless steel utensils. The position according to the ban...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntia Vs. Hira Nand Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi27; 1985(9)DRJ185
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) In a suit for permanent injunction based on a claim that she was a tenant in a portion of House No. 543, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi, the petitioner had claimed a temporary injunction. According to the case in the plaint, her husband was an owner of several plots including plot No. 543 which he had left by a will to his brother Gulab Singh. Gulab Singh sold this property to Hira Nand Sharma, the first defendant. In this plaint, she claimed that she was a tenant in a room situated on Plot No. 546, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, which she gave up to take a room in Plot No. 543 as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 5.00 . After the sale to the defendants, it was claimed that the defendants had started putting pressure on her to vacate the premises and, the defendants were trying to forcibly make her vacate the premises. The defendants case on the other hand was that they had got provisional possession from Gulab Singh under an agreement to sell and the plaintiff was nowhere in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Santokh Singh Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD445a(Delhi)
1. The assessee is an individual. The accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 ended on 31-3-1978. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that there was a settlement amongst the co-owners of the properties of which the assessee was also a party. A copy of the memorandum dated 7-7-1979 was filed by the assessee which stipulates the arrangement of the properties settled amongst the various co-owners. According to the ITO, in terms of this memorandum of agreement, the assessee surrendered his rights as co-owner in the properties at Malcha Marg and Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. According to the assessee, the family settlement arrived at between the various co-owners was bonafide one and as such it was not correct to say that the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act') are attracted. The GTO was not satisfied with the said explanation. According to him, the assessee had surrendered his share of properties in question and as such ...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Kuldip Raj Narang
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD489(Delhi)
1. These are ten departmental appeals directed against the orders passed by the AAC in respect of the wealth-tax assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1978-79. The main grounds in these appeals are common. All these appeals have been heard together and they are disposed of by this common order.2. In order to understand the issue involved in these appeals, we may take the appeal for the assessment year 1969-70 and then consider the appeals for later years. In this year there is only one ground of appeal and it reads as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC, Range 'A', New Delhi was not justified in holding that wealth amounting to Rs. 2,10,640 should be excluded from the wealth of the assessee as the property had been validly transferred to the HUF in October 1978.The assessee is an individual. While filing the return for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee had explained that he had gifted certain shares belonging to him and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. the Siemens India Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]61STC194(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. These two Sales Tax References (Nos. 13 and 14 of 1981) have been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as the assessed under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The reference is consequent to the order of the Tribunal dated 6th November, 1980, whereby the learned Tribunal had held that electric motors sold by the assessed were exempt from sales tax. The question referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, is as follows : 'Whether electrical motors other than that of 3 to 7 1/2 h.p. fall within the ambit of entry No. 17 to the Third Schedule of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, and the sales thereof were exempt from the levy of sales tax ?' 2. The question referred at the instance of the dealer is as follows : 'In case electric motors other than that of 3 to 7 1/2 h.p. are held as falling under entry No. 17 to the Third Schedule of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, were they covered by entry No. 15 to the First Schedule of the Act or...
Tag this Judgment!Chand and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT360; 1986(11)DRJ247
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to the above-mentioned revision petition in brief are that on 17th April 1979, Food Inspector Arun Kumar accompanied by another Food Inspector Baljit Singh visited the premises bearing No. 4634, Gali Abdul Building, Roshanara Road, where a factory called Amrit Soda Water Factory was being run and carbonated aerated water was being manufactured Sri Chand-appellant was present there. He was looking after the business of the said factory and was conducting manufacture and sale of carbonated aerated wafer After disclosing their identity Arun Kumar lifted a sample of carbonated aerated water which comprised nine .bottles of carbonated aerated water duly sealed with identical crown corks. They bore the label that the carbonated water had been made with sugar and saccharine and had no coloring matter. A little while afterwards i.e. at about 4 p.m.(2) Baljit Singh, Food Inspector, too lifted another sample of carbonated aerated water having similar crown...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Raj @ Dharma Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT341
H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is an appeal by Dharam Raj accused/appellant against his conviction under sections 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code and sentence of three years' Ri and a fine of Rs. 250.00 under section 366 and four years Ri and a tine of Rs. 250.00 under section 376 Indian Penal Code passed by Shri J.D. Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated July 17, 1984 and July 18, 1984 respectively. The prosecution case stated in brief is that the appellant Dharam Raj and the prosecutrix Kumari Mani are neighbours and were known to each other. On February 19, 1981 at about 4.00 p.m. Kumari Mani aged 15-16 years was waiting at the bus stop of Sant Nagar for going from there to her house after doing the house-hold duties as a maid servant in some houses. The appellant came there. He told Kumari Mani that her father was seriously ill and was admitted to Safdarjang Hospital and her mother had sent him to bring her at the hospital. Kumari ...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Mehra and ors. Vs. Naresh Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1985)ACC176; [1988]64CompCas42(Delhi); 28(1985)DLT120; 1985RLR585
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 26th July, 1980 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Delhi whereby the claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 97,000.00 with interest and costs. The Insurance Company was held liable to the extent of Rs. 50.000.00 in view of the provisions of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act (here-in-after called 'the Act'). Two sets of cross objections have also been filed. One set is by the Insurance company and the owner and the other by the owner and the driver. This judgment will dispose of the appeals as also the cross-objections. (2) It was alleged in the petition under section 110-A of the Act filed by the claimants that Mahinder Nath Mehra aged 40 years working as Managing Director of Kem Metal Powder Private Ltd. Sahibabad, U.P. had gone in the morning of 15th October, 1978 to the Holy Family Hospital to visit his ailing father. He had gone in his car w...
Tag this Judgment!Pal JaIn and anr. Vs. Mulakh Raj
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi21; 1985(9)DRJ145
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) respondent Mulakh Raj, had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10.172.00 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was filed on or about 1st June, 1977. It came up before the court on 3rd June, 1977 when the court directed that the suit be registered and summons under Order 37 be issued to the defendant/petitioners for 9th August, 1977. The defendants were served with the summons under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 12th October, 1977. On 19th October, 1977 the defendants caused the vakalatnama to be filed on their behalf through Sh. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. (2) The suit came up before the court on 19th October, 1977 and it appears that the counsel for the defendants had filed a power-of-attorney executed in his favor by the respondents on that date. The order sheet of 19th October, 1977 is not very legible and it cannot be said whether counsel for the defendants was present when the suit was tak...
Tag this Judgment!Tressa Nair Vs. Sobha Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR463
G.C. Jain, J. (1) NO. 25/23 Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi consisting of one room, store with common use of Verandah, bath, latrine and open courtyard, to the respondent Sobha Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 on 7.11.74. On 8.11.79 she brought a petition for his eviction from the said premises u/s 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). (2) The tenant defended the claim on a variety of contentions. These are (i) the petition did not disclose a cause of action for want of plea that the landlady had no other reasonably suitable accommodation, (ii) the letting purpose was residential cum-commercial and (iii) the landlady required accommodation for herself and her daughter only, the accommodation with her was reasonably suitable. The petition had been filed because the tenant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 which he had advanced to the landlady on the day of letting and had obtained a decree. She had even withheld the rent deed executed at the time of letting. He...
Tag this Judgment!