Delhi Court January 1990 Judgments

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sharbati Devi Jhalani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Del)133; [1990]182ITR487(Delhi)

B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : 'Weather, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directing the valuation of shares of M/s. Gedore Tools India P. Ltd. on yield basis as against the value of the shares worked out in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules ' 2. The question involved is, in our opinion, covered by a Division Bench authority of this court in the case of the assessed herself, namely, Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT : [1986]159ITR549(Delhi) . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said decision of this court has not been accepted by the Department and a special leave petition is pending in the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, as far as this court is concerned, the decision in the aforesaid case clearly covers the present controversy before us and, as far as this cou...

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]33ITD261(Delhi)

ORDER.Per Shri K. S. Vishwanathan, Vice President - In this appeal by the assessed, a public limited company, several points are raised and they are decided Serialtim in the following paragraph :2. The first ground contains the assesseds grievance in the disallowance of Rs. 6,99,947 levied by way of penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Facts leading to the levy of penalty are as follows :3. The assessed has a unit in Tamil Nadu manufacturing cement. The cement is sold by the assessed within the State as well as outside the State. White forwarding the goods to the customers, the assessed was also including the freight in the bills. There has been a dispute between the Sales-tax Department and cement companies whether the element of freight included in the bill could be considered for the purpose of Central Sales Tax as well as the State General Sales Tax. The view taken by the authorities was that as the sale price of cement has been fixed under the Cemen...

Smt. Indu Bala and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1991CriLJ1774; 1990RLR131

ORDER1. In these two petitions filed under section 438 of the code of criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in respect of the case registered as F.I.R. No. 198/89 under Sections 498-A, 406 etc. of the Penal Code. 2. The short question which has arisen is whether Mr. K. K. Sud, counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, should be heard in the matter or not Mr. P. P. Grover, counsel for the petitioners in these matters, has strongly objected to giving any hearing to the counsel for the complainant. 3. It is true that only the State through the Delhi Administration has been joined as respondent in these two petitions and as a matter of fact, a case which the police has investigated on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 198/89 only the State is the necessary party. The complainant or the witnesses who might have been examined in support of the case during the investigation are neither necessary nor proper parties. The offences which are committed by the per...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Usha Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]182ITR437(Delhi)

Kirpal, J.1. In the present case, the respondent had in her books of account credited one Messrs. Gupta and Co. with Rs. 48,476 and one S. Surain Singh with Rs. 48,400. The respondent was constructing a building and the cost of material was debited to the said accounts. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that Messrs. Gupta and Co. and S. Surain Singh did not exist and that those entries were fictitious. He sought to apply section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that section 68 was not applicable and remanded the case to the Income-tax Officer for investigating further facts as, according to the Commissioner of the Income-tax, if at all, it is only section 69 or section 69B or section 69C which would be applicable. The Income-tax Officer filed an appeal and the Tribunal held that 'section 68 deals specifically with sums credited in the books of the assessed on account of receipt of money'. According to learned counsel for the pet...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Attar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]182ITR462(Delhi)

1. The petitioner is seeking reference of the following question of law to this court : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) that the assessment should be rectified by substituting the amount finally payable by the court in respect of compensation ' 2. In the instant case, the question arises as to valuation of the right to receive compensation on the valuation date. The Wealth-tax Officer had valued the claim of the assessed on the basis of the assessed's demand for enhancement. In appeal, it was held that it was merely a claim and that thereforee, it was not proper to place any value on the claim. The appellate authority, however, gave a direction that, as and when the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court was allowed and if any enhancement in the compensation is allowed, then the Wealth-tax Officer would be at liberty to rectify t...

indu Bala and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1990Delhi84

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In these two petitions filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in respect of the case registered as F.I.R. No. 198/89 under Sections 498A, 406 etc. of the Median Penal Code. (2) The short question which has arisen is whether Mr. K.K. Sud, counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, should be heard in the matter or not Mr. P. P. Grover, counsel for the petitioners in these matters, has strongly objected to giving any hearing to the counsel for the complainant. (3) It is true that only the State through the Delhi Administration has been joined as respondent in these two petitons and as a matter of fact, a case which the police has investigated on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 198189 only the State is the necessary party. The complainant or the witnesses who might have been examined in support of the case during the investigation are neither necessary nor proper parties. The offences which are com...

Jagir Singh and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(28)LC43Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Customs, Chandigarh dated 9.4.1985, confiscating smuggled textiles and pistas and the truck used in their transport, and imposing penalties on the appellants herein. At 4.30 a.m., on 17.7.1983, the police party at Budha Darya noticed a truck bearing Regn. No. PUQ-3342 coming from the direction of village Sutapind Sunkohali, without lights. On being signalled to stop, the occupants of the truck opened fire which was returned by the police. The driver of the truck, Harbans Singh and Kashmir Singh, the 2nd appellant herein, were apprehended on the spot. The other occupants managed to escape under the cover of darkness but the Ist, 3rd and 4th appellants herein, namely Jagir Singh, Dara Singh and Pargat Singh were recognised by the A.S.I. and the head constable in the light of a very light pistol. The search of the truck resulted in recovery of 20 bags containing 487 pieces of Pak flat measuring 1,54,965/- and 5 bags of pistas we...

income-tax Officer Vs. Urmila Mittal.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]32ITD798(Delhi)

ORDERPer Kathuria, Accountant Member - This is a Departmental appeal arising out of the order dated 25-3-1985 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, and relates to assessment year 1981-82.2. The only issue is with regard to the capital gain. The assessed sold a residential house situated at Muzaffar Nagar, on different dates as under :-Date Amount of sale 5-4-1980 Rs. 50,000 28-4-1980 Rs. 34,000 15-7-1980 Rs. 35,000 15-7-1980 Rs. 900 16-10-1980 Rs. 48,000 TOTAL : Rs. 1,67,900 There were some other charges and the total sale proceeds, thereforee, amounted to Rs. 1,80,000. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the property at Mazaffar Nagar was not self-occupied and had actually been rented out and so the provisions of section 54(1) were not attracted. The ITO also did not accept the plea of the assessed that the sale proceeds were utilised within the specific time and so capital gains was not exigible. The ITO also rejected the contention of the assessed that ...

P.K. Nanda Vs. M/S. Gem India and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

B.L. Anand, Member: (1) This is an appeal filed by Shri P.K. Nanda, R/o B-115 G.T. Kamal Road, Delhi against the impugned order dated 13.9.89 passed by the learned District Forum, Delhi. The appellant has agitated that he had purchased a Gem refrigerator from M/s. Gem India of 2/90 Connaught Circus, New Delhi through their agent M/s. Sindhu Traders, 8-E Kamla Nagar, Delhi on 31.5.84. That he had also purchased a Gem Voltage Stabilizer alongwith the Gem refrigerator which was sold to him as a tag item with the assurance of free service for both the items during the guarantee period of 5 years up to 31.5.89. He has further alleged that the so called service was not at all free service as they had charged Rs. 450/- in the bill as anticipated service. The appellant has further stated that while passing the impugned order dated 13.9.89, the learned District Forum has allowed him a refund of Rs. 40/- out of the total claim of Rs. 120/- which had been wrongly charged by the respondents and wh...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]33ITD1(Delhi)

ORDERPer Krishnamurthy, President - This is a reference application, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi III, New Delhi stating that the following questions, said to be questions, said to be questions of law arise out of the remand order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1795/Del/88 :'(a) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in permitting assessed to set up a new case (in second appellate stage in second round of litigation) - which was contrary to assesseds case set up earlier (b) If answer to question No. (a) is in the affirmative, whether Tribunal was legally right in admitting fresh evidence at this stage (c) Whether, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in calling for the evidence not before lower authorities and for which there was no ground of appeal by taking resort to Rule 29 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules ?'As in our opinion, no question of law can be said to arise out of a rem...