Delhi Court October 1989 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.
Anurag Trading and Investment Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD46(Delhi)
1. The appeal is preferred by the assessee, a limited company, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dt. 24-9-1986, confirming the action of the ITO taken Under Section 104(1) of the IT. Act, demanding from the assessee, tax of Rs. 25,891 on the undistributed profits.2. Appearing for the assessee Sh. Dujari submitted that the assessee an investment company, for the year had profits of Rs. 1,46,529 after taxation. The company has as its paid capital redeemable preference shares, which could be redeemed only from out of profits, for which it had to necessarily appropriate the amount to the redemption reserve account, and accordingly an amount of Rs. 58,779 was set apart from out of the profits of the year under consideration. The assessee company had also transferred Rs. 14,653 representing 10 per cent of the profits of the year to general reserve account as required by the provision contained in the Company Law, before declaration of any dividend, which was accepted by the CIT(A), on th...
B.M. Ummar Farook Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT31; ILR1989Delhi529
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quotient of the detention order dated May 11, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The petitioner has also sought quotient of declaration dated June 1. 1988, issued by respondent No. 3 under Section 9(1) of Cofeposa Act. (2) As the period of more than one year has elapsed since the petitioner was detained, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any arguments in challenging the detention order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the continued detention of the petitioner has become bad inasmuch as the representation...
Jamesh W. Litchfield Vs. Narcotics Central Bureau
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT97; 1990(18)DRJ129; 1990(26)ECC317
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The petitioner in this bail petition is accused of offences registered under Sections 8, 19, 21 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (for short the 'Act'}, Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against him are that he was found in possession of 10 grams of smack, 18 ampules of liquid which was subsequently identified as morphine and also some glass syringes, and six hypodermic needless. .After detailed consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of all the accused including the present petitioner a charge for the aforesaid offences has been framed, and the case has been 'posted for prosecution evidence.(2) This petition for bail is pressed mostly on the ground that the trial has not made much headway and that there are serious discrepancies in the prosecution case and even the Chemical analysis does not clearly indicate as to whether articles allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner fall within the d...
ishwar Parasram Punjabi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT91; 1990(25)ECC430; 1990(48)ELT224(Del)
Santosh Doggal, J.(1) In this petition filed under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C., the legality of an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi, on 25th April, 1989 on the application moved by the Customs' Department under section 110(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962, is assailed on the plea that the order suffers from inherent defect as it has been passed without any notice to the petitioner, whose rights were likely to be prejudicially affected any without affording him an opportunity of being heard.(2) The facts in so far as they have a bearing on the point in issue here, are that as per allegations made in the application moved on 20th April 1989 by the Special Public Prosecutor for Customs Department before Shri V.B. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi who is link magistrate to the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, contraband goods consisting of V.C.Rs., VCPs, colour film rolls, photo papers, ete. all of foreign origin were seized from differen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›