Delhi Court August 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.
Sanghi Motors Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Del)15; (1991)187ITR703
Kirpal, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as in force with effect from April 1, 1984. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in motor vehicles and its accounting year is the calendar year. In respect of the assessment year 1985-86, the accounting year ended on December 31, 1984. With regard to the sales made for the quarter ending December 31, 1984, the petitioner paid sales tax on January 31, 1985. The petitioner however, claimed deduction of the payment of sales tax in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86. 3. The Income-tax Officer, while applying section 43B, disallowed the said deduction claimed and added back the amount. On the basis of the said add back, additional tax has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner, it is also contended that proceedings for penalty and levy of interest have also been initiated. 4. Section 43B, as it stood in the assessment year 1985-86, reads as under; 'notwithstanding anyt...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Balbir Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ881; 42(1990)DLT511; 1990(19)DRJ350
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) On December 5. 1979 Sh. Joginder Nath, Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted Balbir Chand Alias Billa, Mohan Lal, Ramesh Kumar, Bansi Lal, Ashok Kumar and Nafis charged under Sections 302, 147, 14 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The State, feeling aggrieved, has filed this appeal.(2) The case of the prosecution falls into a short compass. Its essentials may be recapitulated. The occurrence is of December 15, 1978. Time about 12:15 P.M. Jagdish was the name of the deceased. The First Information Report was lodged by his nephew Surinder Kapur, who, at that time, was a student of Gurukul Higher Secondary School situated at Ram Bagh, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. He entered into the witness box as. witness No. 2 of the prosecution. Besides him, the others alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence are Ram Parvesh and Harminder Singh (Public Witness s 3 and 4 respectively). The summum-bonum of the evidence is that on the day of occurrence while Surinder Kapur was coming out of his s...
Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT384
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, the notification dated 13th of November, 1959 under Section 4, a declaration dated 2nd of January, 1969 under Section 6 award No. 150/86-87 dated 19th of September, 1986 under Section Ii of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred .to as the Act.) (2) The petitioner has averred that he is a co-owner of land bearing Khasra No. 1125/1060/248, measuring 21 bighas 4 biswas, situated in village Haiderpur, Delhi. The said land was evacuee property at the time when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was made. The petitioner purchased it from the Custodian of Evacuee Property at an auction held on 31st of October 1960. (3) The land in question is a part of 34,070 acres of land in respect of which the notification dated 13th of November, 1959 had been issued. Para2 of the notification expressly excluded from applicability thereof, inter alia, '...
Padmavati Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT612; 1991(20)DRJ94; 1990RLR479
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This is a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction against defendant No. 2, restraining it from forfeiting or determining the perpetual lease deed dated February 14, 1966 regarding residential plot of land bearing No. B-1/67, Safdarjung, Enclave, New Delhi and for grant of mandatory injunction requiring the defendant No,1, Delhi Development Authority to accord the accessory sale permission in accordance with its public policy and in consonance with the terms of the lease deed so that the sale deed could be executed by defendant No. 2 in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid properly. Relief of mandatory injunction is also sought against defendant No. 2 for executing the sale deed of this property in favor of the plaintiff after the necessary permission has been granted by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff also seeks perpetual injunction against defendant No. 2 restraining him from transferring, assigning or alienating in any manner whatsoever the propert...
Prem Dutt Parashar Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT610; [1991(62)FLR492]
S.B. Wad, J. (1) Bureau of Indian Standards was established under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. It has its headquarters at New Delhi and 17 branch officers in various parts of India. These petitions are filed by seven scientific cadre officers against their transfer to different branches by Bureau's order dated 4th May, 1990. It may be noted that a bout 80 officers were transferred from one branch to another and some to the headquarters at Delhi. More than 70 officers have already moved out on transfer to different places. (2) The petitioners are senior officers who are getting more than Rs. 4,000.00 as carry home salary. There are no malafides alleged against the respondents in passing transfer orders. The contention of the petitioners is that the service regulations laying down terms and conditions of service of employees do not provide for any transfer and, thereforee, their services are not tarnsferable. The petitioners have also made personal grievances such as disturb...
Peare Lal Sood Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT433; 1990(19)DRJ247; 1990RLR490
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Peare Lal Sood was convicted under Section 61(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (for short the Act) by. a metropolitan magistrate. New Delhi on 3th November, 1977. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 650.00 or in default to undergo R.I. for two months by the metropolitan magistrate on 7th November, 1977.(2) Peare Lal filed an appeal which was disposed of by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 29th November, 1978. The judgment of con- viction was upheld but the order of sentence was modified and the amount of fine was reduced to Rs. 250.00 .(3) Being still not satisfied Peare Lal Sood filed the revision petition under Sections 401/397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.(4) Briefly stated the allegations against the petitioner have been that on 13th February, 1973 recovery of liquor was made from one Darshan Lal w...
Taxmaco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC563Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals were originally filed as revision petitions before the Government of India, which have been statutorily transferred to this Tribunal as if they were appeals filed before this Tribunal under Section 35 P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Since, the issues involved are similar in these three appeals, they are, therefore, clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The facts of the case in brief relating to these issues are that appellants M/s Texmaco Ltd. manufacturers of wagons. These wagons were supplied to the Railways on payment of duty calculated on the value of the wagon bodies only without including the value of the wheel sets supplied by the Railways and on which the wagon body was mounted on the ground that the appellants manufactured only the wagon body on the wheel sets supplied by the Railways and that they did not also charge for the value of such wheel sets in the invoices. The Assistant Collector who adjudicated ...
Ambica Spinning Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT357TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-2-1987 passed by the Additional Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Factory premises of the appellant were visited by the Central Excise Preven-tive Officers on 25-9-1984. Officers found some quantity of waste in a store room pledged with bank. In another store room 56 bags containing man-made non-cellulosic spun yarn of counts 3 to 4 and weighing 367 kg. net were found. Officers found present, Shri Sunil Kumar, a partner in the sister concern of the appellant firm, namely, M/s. Ambika Wool-len Mills and some workers were engaged in packing of miscellaneous goods. Six power-looms, 1 wrap machine, 7 handloom and 400 spindles were installed in the premises but spindles were not working at the time of officers' visit. On enquiry, Sh. Sunil Kumar in-formed that the said yarn has been received by them for fabrication from M/s. Beteks International and M/s. Bholly Industries, Amritsar.The officers retained the above yarn...
Jagdish Kaur Vs. Rabinder Singh Mathoda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT401; 1990(19)DRJ219
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) Defendant has moved this application under Order 9 Role 7 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') for the setting aside the order dated 18-9-1989 by virtue of which the applicant/defendant was proceeded ex-parte. It is stated that Ob 2nd November, 1989, defendant came to know that suit had been filed against him by the plaintiff and was listed before this Court on 3rd November, 1989. The defendant, it is further alleged, is serving as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and posted at New Delhi. He filed a petition for grant of probate on the premises that Sh Gurcharan Singh son of late Major Suhel Singh as owner of D-174, defense Colony, New Delhi and being the real maternal uncle to the defendant-applicant executed and signed last Will on 8th January, 1985 at Delhi by virtue of which the right in the said property vested in the applicant. The testator died on 11th August, 1983 in an accident Practically, this application na...
Vijay Kumar Ganeja and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT428; 1990RLR436
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.B. (2) The question involved is very short one and brooks no delay and that is why we are disposing it off immediately. (3) In August, 1987 the respondents published an advertisement intimating that it was holding auction for the sale of some plots in an area which is known as Geeta Colony. According to the terms of the auction 25%, of the bid amount was to be paid as earnest money and 75% of the amount was to be payable on confirmation of the bid by the Vice Chairman. (4) It is not in dispute that all the ten petitioners successfully bid at the auction held on 29th October, 1987 and paid their earnest money. On 4th November, 1987 their bids were confirmed by the Vice Chairman and the petitioners were required to make payment of 75% within 30 days. By 2nd and 4th December, 1987, except petitioner No. 2, all other petitioners paid the requisite amount, Petitioner No. 2 paid the 75% after 4th December, 1987 along with interest thereon. On 31st March, 1988 notic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »