Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 6 of about 120 results (0.022 seconds)Ram Panjwani and Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD21a(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1985-86 is directed against the order dated 31 -12-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut under Section 263 of the IT Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is a forest lessee with head office at Hardwar and branches at Jammu and Yamuna Nagar. The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT for short) called for the record of the assessee firm for assessment year 1985-86 and was of the impression that the assessment framed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) on 31 -10-1985 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. He accordingly issued a notice dated 9-9-1987 to the assessee and fixed the case for hearing for 9-1 0-1987.The assessee filed its objections vide letter dated 20-11-1987. The learned CIT, however, decided as under :- (a) The assessee firm had been allowed deduction under Section 80HH amounting to Rs. 9,90,095. This consisted of Rs. 3,90,615 in respect of Yamuna Nagar ...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Nowlakha and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Del)73; ILR1992Delhi226; [1991]192ITR436(Delhi)
ORDER UNDER S. 132(3)--Extension for retention of books beyond 60 days--Not permissible unless CIT grants same under sub-s. (8A).HELD :The order of restraint under s. 132(3) may adversely affect the business and, thereforee, adequate safeguards are sought to be provided in the Act by the insertion of sub-s. (8A) in s. 132. In order that the restraint order must not be continued indefinitely, sub-s. (8A) of s. 132 provides that the restraint order can be continued only if, before the expiry of 60 days, and for reasons to be recorded, the CIT grants an extension. The provisions of sub-s. (8A) cannot be by-passed or rendered nugatory by revoking an order under s. 132(3) and thereafter passing another order on the same date.Income Tax Act 1961 s.132 Search and seizure--...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Mittal and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT589; (1992)IILLJ428Del
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek to challenge the order dated September 20,1990, (annexure A), issued by Delhi Development Authority, respondent no. 2 herein, in short Dda, thereby interpreting the Recruitment Rules, for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer. (2) For better appreciation of the questions, involved in this writ petition, and the contentions, urged before me, by learned Counsel for parties, it is necessary to state in brief, the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) Petitioners, who hold degree in Engineering, were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) in the DDA. From the post of Junior Engineers (Civil) & (Electrical), the next promotion is to that of Assistant Engineer. The Recruitment Rules, as laid down by the Dda, vide resolution No. 574 dated November 13, 1963, far the post of Assistant Engineer, provide as under : '1. Direct or deputation ...
Tag this Judgment!Accura Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)LC29Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case as given in the order-in-original No. 23rd May, 1981, are as follows :- 1.1 The appellants herein filed three classification lists 1/87,2/87 and 3/87 with an intention to clear their goods during the financial year 1987-88 for goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 85 and Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. Alongwith the classification lists, the appellants furnished a copy of SSI registration certificate bearing No. 260/73/1458 dated 24-1-1979 in respect of unit No. 2, Sona Industrial Estate, Parsi Panchayat Road, Andheri (East), Bombay and the copy of the certificate was endorsed to Lower Parel Address. It is relevant to mention at this stage that the appellants in 'Statement of Facts' to their appeal memorandum has stated that they sold their unit at Andheri on 1-4-1982. Since the appellants were not able to produce any SSI registration certificate for their unit at Lower Parel or whether they were availing any exemption under Notification 77/85 or ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD1a(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the assessees for assessment year 1979-80 arise out of two separate orders both dated 31-8-1987, passed by CIT (Appeals) - XII, New Delhi. As identical issues are involved, these appeals are disposed of by a combined order for the sake of convenience.2. Brief facts of the case arc that the assessces had l/3rd share each in the property at 9-Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. Shri Pramod Kumar is the son and Smt. Bimla Rani is the mother. Shri Vinod Kumar, another son was the owner of the remaining l/3rd' share of the property. The property in question consisted of a plot of land measuring 1.41 acres.There was a building over the plot. The property in question was inherited by the afore-mentioned three co-owners from late Shri Rameshwar Das who died in 1966. These co-owners floated a company named M/s Ramesh Apartments (P.) Ltd. on 6-11-1978. They relinquished all the rights, claim, titles, interest etc. in the aforesaid property in favour of M/s Ramesh Apartments (P.) Ltd...
Tag this Judgment!inder Kant Jha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992CriLJ916; 45(1991)DLT328
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated October 12, 1987 convicting the appellant and one Kishori under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. They were further required to pay each Rs. 100.00 as fine in default of which two months' further imprisonment was imposed. Both the persons had been charged for having committed murder of one Vinod Kumar son of Ganesh Jha, Public Witness 12. (2) First we have a look at facts. Inder Kant Jha is a resident of village Khatuaha, district Samastipur, Bihar, while the other appellant Kishori Lal belongs to district Madhubani, Bihar. The deceased Vinod Kumar was doing a joint business with appellant Inder Kant Jha. They used to purchase chappals and shoes in Delhi and sell the same in their native village. For this purpose the deceased bad taken a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 from his father, Ganesh Jha, Public Witness 12. In Delhi the d...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. D.C. Rastogi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD490(Delhi)
1. As these cross appeals are directed against the order dated 8th February, 1988, passed by the CPT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1984-85, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience are being disposed of by a comfirm order.2. The assessee is an individual. In February 1976 certain complaints were received against the assessee in respect of tax evasion and acquisition of large assets by him and his family from undisclosed source of income. Before enquiries into these allegations could be completed, the assessee in September 1986 submitted revised returns of income for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1986-87 under Amnesty Scheme, 1985, declaring additional accumulated income for these years at Rs. 58. 90 lakhs. Similarly, additional income of Rs. 40. 35 lakhs was declared under the aforesaid scheme by his wife Smt. Meena Rastogi for the aforesaid assessment years. For the assessment year 1984-85 additional income under the Amnesty Scheme had been declared by the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi182; II(1993)DMC64
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-1-1989 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi by which she dismissed the appellant's petition for grant of divorce against the respondent-wife.2. The brief facts leading to this unfortunate litigation between the parties are as follows:The parties were married on 6-5-82 at Sona, District Gurgaon where from the respondent hails. There is no issue from the wedlock. After the marriage the appellant gave her all love and affection. He took her for honeymoon from Delhi to Bangalore by air and from Bangalore to Mysore and Ooti by road. In spite of love and affection having been showered by the husband on the wife, she did not appear to be pleased and said many times that he was not a suitable match for her and thus exhibited superiority over him. She also did not give due respect to his parents. She pressed him to leave her at her parents house. Accordingly, he took her there on 21-5-1982 i.e. just after 15 days of the marriage. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Bar Association Vs. B. Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT153
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) ADMIT. (2) By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Delhi Bar Association, seeks to challenge the impugned order dated June 12, 1971, passed by Shri B.L. Garg. Additional District Judge, Delhi, and for acceptance of the application dated June 5,1991, for restoring the status quo ante. (3) For better appreciation of the question, involved in the present case, and the contentions, urged before me, by learned Counsel for parties, it will be necessary to give the summary of the facts and circumstances, leading to the institution of the present petition. (4) Delhi Bar Association, petitioner herein, hereinafter called the Association, is one of the leading Bar Associations, in India and, its membership is between 4,000 to 5,000. At about 11 P.M. on June 3,1991, the Association, through its Secretary and another advocate, filed a suit for permanent injunction, to restrain Smt. B. Prasad, Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, and Shri R.S. Dhaiya, Assist...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Verma Vs. Lawyers Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT413
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner has filed a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, inter alia, alleging that an order passed by the Joint Registrar (Arbitration) on 8th October, 1990 has been violated by the respondents. (2) The petitioner is a member of a Group Housing Co-operative Society. On 18th September, 1990 a division bench of this Court had passed an order directing the Commissioner of Lands, Dda, to allot all the flats constructed by the respondent-society. These flats were to be allotted by a draw of lots on 12th October, 1990 which were to be conducted by the Commissioner (Lands) or by his nominee. (3) It appears that there was a dispute pending before the Joint Registrar under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act. This dispute was between the petitioner and the respondent-society and on 5th October, 1990 an application was filed by the petitioner requiring the Arbitrator to stay the draw of lots which was to be held on 8th...
Tag this Judgment!