Delhi Court October 1992 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 4)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR350(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid reference. Income-tax Reference No. 74 of 1982 is in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, while I. T. R. No. 71 of 1982, is in respect of the year 1967-68. The point involved in both the cases pertains to the computation of the annual letting value, though the questions of law have been differently worded. In respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966. iT R. 74 , the question of law referred is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in coming to the conclusion that the bona fide annual letting value of the property in question was Rs. 9,133 in the assessment year 1965-66 and Rs. 11,741 in the assessment year 1966-67 '2. In respect of the assessment year 1967 68 I. T. R. 71, the question of law referred is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from quarter...
income-tax Officer Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD38(Delhi)
1. The revenue has filed these three appeals, objecting to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, dt. Feb. 13, 1987. The objection of the revenue in the asst. years 1963-64 & 1965-66, relate to the imposition of the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The objection in asst. year 1965-66, relate to the imposition of the penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The common issue raised in all these appeals, relate to the action taken by the Assessing Officer, under Section 155 of the Act, consequent to the order of the Commissioner, passed under Section 264 of the Act, in the case of the firm, in which, the assessee, is a partner. The common claim of the revenue, in all the appeals, is that, the AAC could not have cancelled the penalty, on the basis, that, action under Section 155 of the Act, do not permit such an action. The further claim of the revenue was that, the AAC had overlooked the fact, the penalties have been imposed consequent upon the setting asid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR341(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax (Tribunal) under section 256(1) of the Act, one question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessed. 2. The question which has been referred at the instance of the assessed is as follows : 'Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at the finding that the applicant had not proved that the expenditure of Rs. 1,42,289 representing a part of the commission paid to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business ?' 3. This reference is in respect of the assessment year 1965-66. Some commission had been paid by the assessed to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation. Out of the total amount so paid, a sum of Rs. 1,42,289 was disallowed. This Corporation had been appointed as the sole selling agent of the assessed-company for a period of five years with effect from July ...
Hoti Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT43
Mohd. Samim, J.(1) This is an application by the petitioner for releasing him on bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased Smt. Vandana had been residing with her parents for the last six months before her death i.e. on 21/05/1992.In any case, according to the statement of her mother Smt. Bhagwati,the deceased had been residing with her parents for the last three months.A compromise was entered into in between the deceased and the petitioner on 1/05/1992. As per terms of the compromise the deceased was tore-join the petitioner on 23/05/1992. In the above circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the instant case doesn't fall within the domain of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is entitled to bail. He cannot be held responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased on 21/05/1992. Hence the petitioner is entitled to...
Miracle Menthol Distillary Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)13
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for our consideration two specific issues. The first 4 grounds cover one such issue and that being the addition of Rs. 72,799 to the trading account.2. The appellant in this case is a registered firm the assessment year involved being 1979-80 with the previous year ending 31st July, 1978. It carries on business in distillation and purchase and sale of Mentha oil. The ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings made the aforesaid addition on the basis of the following facts :(i) That the assessed had purchased Mentha oil from agriculturists only, but no vouchers in respect of such purchases had been produced;(ii) The assessed did not maintain any register with regard to the quantity of Mentha grass received for distillation and from which Mentha oil was extracted;(iii) That in respect of sale of Mentha oil the assessed had produced bill book which was marked as 'duplicate'. On verification...
R. K. Jaipuria Vs. Wealth Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)45TTJ(Del)153
ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J. M. :The grounds of appeal challenging valuation of jewellery not pressed and question of deduction of liabilities of taxes admittedly fully settled by Hon able Supreme Court in the case upheld in CWT vs . Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta : [1984]145ITR11(SC) . We are left with common question relating to valuation of same properties on different valuation dates. By this common order all the appeals are being disposed of.The assessed-HUF on the valuation dates relevant for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1979-80 held the following immovable properties.(1) 229/640 shares in property situated at Municipal 6926 Jaipuria Mills Clock Tower; Subji Mandi, Delhi (also known as Jaipur Spinning Mill). The property with total area measuring 91,640 sq. yds. houses mills, offices, shops, workshops, godowns and some residential quarters. It is a freehold property fully occupied by tenants numbering about 250.(2) Property No. 6943/3 situated at Kohlapur Road, Delhi. The property, comprising of r...
Mohd. Lqbal Qureshi Vs. Manager, Delhi Slaughter House
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT612; 1992(24)DRJ602; ILR1993Delhi201; 1992RLR535
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) These three writ petitions pertain to the problems arising out of the running of a slaughter house located at ldgah. This slaughter house has been functioning for the last about 90 years and is being managed since 1957 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation'). In view of the provisions of Sections 405 to 507, it is the Corporation which has to provide and maintain slaughter houses and no person without the general or special permission of the Commissioner is entitled to sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any municipal market and no place can be used as a market place unless the Commissioner has licensed the same as a market and no place other than a municipal slaughter house can be used as a slaughter house. It is the obligatory function of the Corporation as contemplated in Section 42 and other provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to make adequate provisions for scavenging and removal of Filth, rubbi...
Wellman Hindustan Limited Vs. N.C.R. Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi32; 49(1993)DLT509; 1992(24)DRJ344
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this interim application are that the applicants are carrying business, inter alia, as manufacturers/dealers software, micro-chip encapsulation, textiles and other a ducts in India. The respondent is a foreign company in corporated in Usa having its world head quarters at South Patterson, Boulvard, Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A. The & respondent manufactures computer software, hardware, ATMs and other products. In view of the large potential in Indian market, the respondent was desirous of establishing joint venture in India for manufacture of its various hardware and software products in India. In or about middle of 1985, one Jim Baker of United States. (2) Consulate at Bombay approached the applicant with information that the respondent was looking for a joint venture partner for producing, marketing and servicing its hardware and software products in India. The applicant showed keen interest in entering into arrangements with the respondent. Mr Jim Ba...
Harshad S. Mehta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ392; ILR1993Delhi274
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Mr. Harshad S. Mehta a broker of Bombay Stock Exchange was lodged in Byculla jail Bombay in August, 1992. C.B.I, at Delhi registered a case vide F.I.R. No.RC2(A)/92-ACU(V) dated 25th July, 1992, against him along with Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, M/s, KJ. Investments Private Ltd. and other unknown under Sections 11,12,13(2) and 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'P.C. Act') read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code . (2) That since the petitioner during the relevant time was in Byculla jail Bombay, thereforee, C.B.I, moved an application before Special Judge Delhi on 12th August, 1992 under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . for the production of the petitioner. The Special Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 12th August, 1992 directed the Supdt. Jail, Byculla Bombay to produce Mr. Harshad S. Mehta in the Court as his presence was required for interrogation in connection with the investigation of this case. (3) That the petitiner, in pursu...
Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi66; 48(1992)DLT646
P.N. Nag, J.(1) By this petition petitioners seek for quashing of the order of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 14th May, 1922 whereby he has held that the appeal in the present form is maintainable. The petitioners have further challenged the order of confirmation of the interim stay passed on 24.4.92 and 1.5.92 whereby the implementation of Resolution No. 8 dated 30.3.1992 had been stayed by the Central Registrar. (2) The petitioner-society has expelled as ma.nyas231 members by the resolution aforementioned as according to the Society their conduct was prejudicial to the interest of the Society and the expulsion has been recommended by the General Body of the Society which was attended by more than 6000 of the members. (3) According to the petitioners by the staying of the resolution by the Central Registrar the expelled members automatically stand qualified for the elections and ultimately for elections of the Board of Directors and thereby would cause disruption...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›