Delhi Court July 1990 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.
Saree Centre Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)37ITD306(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 18-7-1986 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jaipur House, Agra (Shri V.K.Mishra). Theassessee has prayed for deletion of the amount of Rs. 85,000 added under Section 68 of the Act.2. The assessec is a registered firm constituted by a female partner Smt. Sharda Devi and a male partner Shri Dinesh Chand Bansal and who happen to be mother and son. The firm has been carrying on business in sarecs and other textile goods. The assessing officer noticed that cash credit appeared in the name of M/s. Dinesh Textiles. The amount comprised of a sum of Rs. 60,000 received by draft and a sum of Rs. 25,000 received by cheque on Allahabad Bank. Before the assessing officer oneShriPuran Chand who happens to be the husband of female partner, appeared from time to time. He explained to the assessing officer that the amount was raised fromShri Brijesh Nath Agarwal, proprietor of M/s. Dinesh Textiles and the interest that was agreed to be paid ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mohd. Hanif Gaddi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD35(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue and the following grounds have been raised: 1. The learned A AC has erred in cancelling the order of the ITO Under Section 143(3) and holding that the assessee is not liable to any capital gains on the transfer of agricultural land. 2. The learned AAC has erred in holding that the ITO was not justified in taking action Under Section 148. 3. The learned AAC's order may be set aside and that of the ITO be restored.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice.3. The ITO initiated action against Sh. Mohd. Hanif, deceased through his son Shri Fateh Mohd., as the deceased had sold certain land during the relevant accounting period for a total sum of Rs. 1,32,126 and in the ITO's view capital gains arising from the transaction had escaped assessment. Return was filed before the ITO declaring nil income. The assessee's contention before the ITO was that the land sold was ag...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.K. Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR131(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : 'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the division on partition of the properties and assets of the Hindu undivided family took place on March 23, 1972, ignoring the Explanationn below section 171 and also the date November 2, 1972, of the award after which the said properties and assets were actually apportioned amongst the coparceners ?' 2. The short question which is involved in this petition is whether the family was disrupted on March 23, 1972, or on November 2, 1972, when the award of the arbitrator was given. 3. It appears that there were differences amongst members of the assessed-family and a sole arbitrator was appointed. According to the Tribunal, the sole arbitrator finalised his award on March 23, 1972, and then some time was taken in obtaining stamp paper and the award was make on November 2, 1972, but according to the award, it was to be operative with effect from March ...
Y.P. Bhalla Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: 1990RLR376
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) In response to the notice issued in a petition filed u/S. 14 of the Arbitration Act by the petitioner-Y.P. Bhalla, the sole arbitrator Shri K.S.R.K. Shankar Rao filed the award dated 21.1.88 and the proceedings on which due notices were given to the parties and Objection Petition LA. No. 3128/89 has been filed by National Seeds Corp. u/Ss. 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award.(2) The only ground on which the award is challenged is that the arbitrator had acted in most arbitrary manner inasmuch as he had not given any opportunity of hearing inclusive of leading evidence despite requests and thus, the award has been given by the arbitrator in violation of principles of natural justice which amounts to judicial misconduct on the part of the arbitrator vitiating the award.(3) The petitioner contested the objections and asserted that sufficient opportunity was given to both the parties by the arbitrator for filing documents and evidence and after considerin...
Rev. on Inc. and anr. Vs. Hosiden Laboratories (India) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR24(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT640; 1991(20)DRJ35; 1990RLR381
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Plaintiffs have brought have a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them, their agents, servants or any person on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and distributing talcum powders and other cosmetics goods falling in class 3 and thereby infringing plaintiffs registered trade mark 'JONTUE' or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff No. 2's registered trade mark and using the said offending mark 'JONTUE' on Talcum Powder and to pass of their goods as those of plaintiffs' goods. Some other reliefs are also sought in the plaint. Along with the plaint, an application I.A. 9377 of 1988 was moved seeking temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit and an ad-interim injunction order was granted on December 20, 1988 against the defendants. Defendants have filed I A. 12/89 seeking vacation of the said ad interim injunction order. Arguments have been heard in both the applications.(2) The case of the plaintif...
Ved Vrata Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT324; 1990(19)DRJ191
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8th September, 1983 whereby the judgment of the Controller dated 7th August, 1985 was confirmed and the execution petition filed by the landlord was dismissed and objections filed by the respondent were allowed. The landlord let out the premises to the respondent under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for a period of 3 years from 15th July, 1978. The period of tenancy expired on 15th July 1981. Therespondent,however,did not vacate the premises as agreed to by him and thereforee the appellant-landlord filed the execution petition. In reply to the execution petition, the respondent-tenant stated that the landlord bad obtained the permission from the Additional Rent Controller for letting out the premises for,a limited period by playing fraud on the Court and by suppressing true facts.(2) Apart from the objection regarding the letting purpose and the alleged fres...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC675Tri(Delhi)
1. The classification of the product "Rustodine" and its eligibility for exemption from payment of duty under the provisions of Notification 101/66 dated 17-6-1966, are the issues for determination in this appeal.2. The respondents herein manufacture Rustodine, a pre-treatment chemical, composed of inorganic acids, organic surface active agents, solvents and water and containing less than 5% by weight of the principal active ingredients. The Department's claim for classification under T.I. 68 on the basis that the product is predominantly inorganic in nature, was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, who upheld the respondents' claim for classification under T.I. 15AA, of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and eligible to the benefit of Notification 101/66. Hence this appeal.3. We have heard Shri L, Narasimha Murthy, learned DR for the appellants and Shri N. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the respondents.4. The contention of the department is that the product is predominantly...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Pon Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR690(Delhi)
1. This is a petition in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. The question sought to be referred by the petitioner is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 16,48,298 made by the Income-tax Officer under section 40A(2)(a) read with section 40A(2)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, out of the total selling agency commission of Rs. 32,96,597 paid to Messrs. Synfibre Sales Corporation ?' 2. A similar question had been raised and decided by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 onwards. In the present case, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision for those years and it upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and allowed the commission. In respect of the earlier years, the Department filed application under section 256(1) which were dismissed and then filed an app...
Mange Ram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT273; 1990(19)DRJ155
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Ranbir Singh was a Head Constable in the Delhi Police. He used to live with his wife Somwati in village Lado Sarai in the house owned by his father-in-law Mange Ram. On the fateful day of March 15, 1984 at about 8 30 p.m. while he was in the said house he received 86% burn injuries. He was rushed to Safdarjung Hospital where, on March 19, 1984 he went to eternal sleep. As per the post mortem report it were the burn injuries which had let to toxemia and septicemia resulting in the death. (2) The prosecution claimed that it were Mange Ram and Somwati who, in furtherance of their common intention, had committed the murder by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting Rambir Singh ablaze. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who tried them, found himself in agreement with the prosecution. He convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Needless. to say both Mange Ram and Somwati have found the judg...
Vidya Devi and ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ394; 42(1990)DLT327
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) The appellants are heirs of one Shri Hukam Singh who had died in a motor accident at the hands of offending car bearing No. Dlk 1744 driven by respondent No. I and owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 and have come in appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its order dated 19th October, 1979. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the lower court file. The finding of me learned Tribunal that the accident had arisen due to rash and negligent driving by rest pondent No. 1 of Car No. Dlk 1744 of respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 is not challenged before me by the learned counsel for the respondent and rightly so. Even otherwise the respondents have not come up in cross-appeal. (2) Shri 0 P. Goyal, learned counsellor the appellant has challenged the award only on the question of compensation. The initial claim was Rs. 5 lacs and the amoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »