Delhi Court March 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.
Union of India Vs. Golam Nabi Azad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi315
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) (ORAL) (Rule D.B.).--The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 7th March 1990, the effect of which is that the respondent No. I has been permitted to stay in the premises which had originally been allotted to him by the Government up to 20th April 1990.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent No. 1 was a member of Lok Sabha and he had been allotted 1 Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. He was also a member of the Council of Ministers in 1982 and, according to respondent No. 1, he was allotted category Viii house because of his long standing in the parliament and also in view of the fact that he had been appointed a member of Council of Ministers.(3) The 8th Lok Sabha, of which respondent No. 1 was a member, was dissolved on 27th November 1989. It is a common ground that under the Rules of allotment, the respondent No. 1 was entitled, as of right, to retain the premises in question for a period of one month thereafter. This period expired on 27th Decemb...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Divine Light Mission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR622(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. Heard. The question which is involved relates to the interpretation of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income received by the assessed by way of subscription from its members was not assessable to income-tax by virtue of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. The petition is disposed of No costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Divine Light Mission (No.1)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR55(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. Heard. The question which is involved relates to the interpretation of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income received by the assessed by way of subscriptions from its members was not assessable to income-tax by virtue of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The petition is disposed of. No costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Implements Manufacturing Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR336(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a prayer for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deduction of Rs. 97,287 on account of 'bonus' when such liability was determined under the agreement executed much after the date of taking over of the assessed's business by another concern ?' 2. It appears that the respondent which is a partnership firm, sold its business to Tiger Locks Ltd., with effect from January 1, 1974. On April 2, 1974, an agreement was entered into between the respondent and its workmen for payment of bonus. The deduction which is claimed by the respondent was disallowed by the income-tax authorities on the ground that, with effect from December 31, 1973, business had been closed and transferred by the respondent to Tiger Ltd. The Tribunal, however, on an...
Eagle theatres Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR584(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. Heard. In our opinion, the following questions of law do arise in the present case. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the following two questions of law : '(1) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,05,000 were not genuine (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the loans of Rs. 1,05,000 are not genuine, is vitiated by errors of law, failure to take into account relevant material, taking into account inadmissible evidence and arriving at inferences which are perverse in law ?' 2. The petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Mahamaya General Finance Co Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR578(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Heard. In our opinion, the Tribunal should state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly made (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the legal contention raised by the assessed to the validity of the assessment by holding that it could not go into question as the same had not been raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's order was not vitiated by reason of their deciding the questions involved in the appeal without appreciating the material before the Tribunal and which the assessed relied in support of its claim for deletion of Rs. 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Sunita Wadhwa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR528(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Heard. In this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner is seeking reference of the following questions to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 could not be held to erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax was entitled in law while initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to take into consideration the result of the enquiries made by her in the case of the assessed as also the case record of Shri O. P. Wadhwa and effect on other allied cases (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was to material...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Motors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR490(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner is seeking a direction that the Tribunal should state the case and refer to this court the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was a genuine partnership in existence during the year 1979-80 and that registration was rightly allowable ?' 2. On the face of it, the question which is posed is a pure question of fact. In the instant case, a partnership deed was drawn up on March 4, 1978, whereby a new partner was inducted. Registration was not granted by the Income-tax Officer but was then subsequently granted, on appeal, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Department was dismissed. In paragraph 2 of the order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the firm which was formed was genuine. In paragraph 3, it has stated that the partnership deed had been given retrospective effect. 3...
East India Transformer and Switch Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC182
1. M/s. East India Transformer & Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of transformers falling under tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. They also undertake repair of old and damaged transformers received by them from Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB). The issue involved is whether the repair work undertaken by the appellant amounts to a process of "manufacture" and liable to fresh duty as transformers or is merely a repairing of old transformers and does not amount to "manufacture" and, therefore, not liable to duty. The learned Assistant Collector had rejected the contentions of the appellant that the repair work undertaken by them does not amount to "manufacture" on the ground that the repair involved replacement of important parts of complete transformers and repairing work undertaken by the appellant amounted to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR440(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax had, in the application under section 256(1), sought reference from the Tribunal on two questions of law which were as follows : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction of Rs. 35,79,866 on account of discount on bonds was admissible business expenditure in this year 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that loss of Rs. 9,07,498 on transfer of shares to SAIL was a revenue loss 2. The Tribunal dismissed the said application which led to the filing of the present petition under section 256(2). Curiously enough, in this petition under section 256(2), the petitioner is seeking reference only of aforesaid question No. 1. There is no contention raised with regard to question No. 2. In paragraph 5 of the petition, reference is only to question No. 1 and in the prayer, which is immediately after paragr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »