Delhi Court November 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.
Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ626
D.P. Wadhwn, J.(1) Though there are four respndents, it is not clear as to against which respondent the petitioners seek these writs or orders as in the prayers the word 'respondent' is used. The four respondents are: (i) Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Revenue Department, New Delhi; (ii) the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi; (iii) the Collector of Customs, Chandigarh and (iv) the Assistant Collector of Customs, Ludhiana. We may also note that the second petitioner is the director of the First petitioner, accompany registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Panchkula in the State of Haryana, where it has also its manufacturing Unit. In the title to the petition, the petitioners did not state that the registered office of 1st petitioner was in the State of Haryana. It is only mentioned that the company was carrying on the business at New Delhi. (2) The Container Freight Station (CFS) ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Del)25
B. N. KIRPAL, J. :This order will dispose of ITC No. 23/1992 and ITC No. 25/1992 which pertain to the asst. yr. 1979-80. The questions of law sought to be referred in these cases are as follows:R.A. 1871 of 1987'1. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law and on the facts in holding that additional sale price of levy sugar amounting to Rs. 37,21,015, could not be regarded as income of the assessed 2. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law and on the facts in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,02,34,534 representing additional electricity charges claimed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, is a permissible deduction 3. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law and on the facts in holding that expenses on foreign tour, amounting to Rs. 1,30,875, were incurred for the purpose of the business of the assessed-company ?''1. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law and on the facts in holding that the interest received on fixed deposit of additional levy sugar cane price received, amounting to Rs...
Dunlop India Limited. Vs. N. Kishore and Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ640
S.C. Jain, J.(1) M/S Dunlop India Ltd has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,054.13 against the defendants under Order 37 Rule 2 Cpc, 1908, as amended, on the allegations that the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff company and on the basis of that agreement the defendants were appointed as stockiest/dealer of the plaintiffs adhesive products and thereafter at all material times the defendants placed various orders in the office of the plaintiff at Delhi for supply of products on the terms and conditions that the defendant No.1 from time to time would pay various amounts of the agreed purchase price of the said products of the plaintiff. During the period 26.11.1986 to 23.1.1987 the defendants purchased the goods worth Rs. 20629.24 from the plaintiff as per the details given in Annexure-B. The defendants issued cheques of various dates towards payment of the price of the goods so purchased but these cheques remained dishonourerd. The detail of the cheques issu...
Safiullah Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)Crimes204; 49(1993)DLT193; 1993(25)DRJ248
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri Safiullah S/o Shri Hasmat Ullah was prosecuted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called as the Act). He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, and came to the conclusion that the offence has been-made out against the petitioner. Accordingly he convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.l,00,000.00 and to further rigorous imprisonment for two years in, case of default of payment this background that the present appeal has been filed.(2) In order to appreciate the points raised, it will be relevant to know in the facts of the case.(3) That a police party consisting ofS.I. Tej Pal Singh, Asi 0m Parkash and some constables including Constable Satish Kumar and others of Anti Auto Then Squad were on checking duty near Andheria Mor in the area of Police Station Mehrauli At that time S.I. Tej Pal Singh and Asi 0m Parkash received a secret inf...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shyam Lal Saraf (Also Shyam L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)385
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :These are cross-appeals directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for our consideration the common issue of penalty imposed on the assessed by the ITO under S. 271(1)(c) and on further appeal a substantial reduction being effected by the first appellate authority. Both the parties are aggrieved, the Revenue in respect of the relief allowed and the assessed in respect of the penalty sustained.2. Taking up for consideration the assesseds appeal first, the same pertains to the addition in respect of a cash credit of Rs. 10,000 alleged to have been received by the assessed from his wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi, the notional addition of Rs. 1,100 on the account of the interest pertaining to the said cash credit and last of all the addition of Rs. 5,100 sustained on account of household expenses. It may be mentioned as a fact that the aforesaid additions were duly confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal.3. As regards the first item, namely, the cash cre...
Sushila Forging (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)66
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :These are appeals directed against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A), one relating to the quantum and the other to the levy of penalty under S. 271(1)(c). Taking up for consideration the quantum appeal, bearing ITA No. 2371 (Del)/91, the facts may be stated as follows.2. The appellant in this case is a Private Ltd. Company, the assessment, year involved being 1986-87 with the previous year ending on 30th Sept., 1985. During the year under consideration, it issued fresh share capital to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs, which included the following subscribers :Rs.1. Shri Ashok Arora 25,000 2. Shri Satish Chopra45,0003. Hardev Prakash Tewari 25,000 4. Mrs. Kamla Tewari 27,500 5. Shri M.P. Tewari 25,000 6. Saroj Bala Tewari 25,0003. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings examined the shareholders at Seriall Nos. 1 & 2 and recorded their statements. In respect of Shri Ashok Arora, it was observed that 'he was a man of no means and was earning ...
income Tax Officer Vs. Kishan Chand Kohli.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Del)1
ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J. M. :The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dt. 15th April, 1986 of CIT(A), Agra. Two grounds have been raised. One is in regard to the addition of Rs. 4,65,598 made on account of unexplained jewellery seized from the premises of the assessed and second against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,52,417 made by the Assessing Officer on account of diamond jewellery found at the time of survey not recorded in the books of accounts. Briefly stating the facts, assessed, who is an individual, was a partner in M/s. Punjabi Jewellers, Agra with his brother Shri Prem Nath Kohli. The said firm was dissolved on 30th Dec., 1981. On 5th Jan., 1982, assessed started the business as a proprietor of M/s. Pradeep Jewellers. On 30th June, 1982, some officers of the IT Department visited the business premises of M/s. Pradeep Jewellers, Namak ki Mandi, Agra and certain books of accounts, diaries and loose papers impounded. At the time of survey the stocks of gold a...
Karuna Raj Vadehra and ors. Vs. Municipal Corportion of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ625
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition was listed before us yesterday and we required the petitioners to file photographs of the alleged construction which they say respondent M.C.D. was going to demolish. This alleged construction was stated to be in the shape of pavement in the verandah in front of the shop of the petitioners. One set of these photographs has since been brought on record. When we see pavement in front of the shop of the petitioners we find that it has been raised in height than the pavements in front of the neighbouring shops. It is like a half step on both sides. We find there is a market established in South Extension 0+3 Part Ii and there is a verandah in front of all the shops running throughout its length for the use of the shoppers and others. The verandah has to be even and smooth throughout its length. If any shopkeeper raises the height of the pavement of the verandah in front of his shop that is likely to cause injuries to the people who use the verandah. One ma...
Vraj Lal Mani Lal and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD413(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a registered firm had filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A), aggrieved by his confirmation of including Rs. 2,92,12,829 as income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. The plea of the appellant is that, the Provident Fund Commissioner, had raised demands towards the PF liability, over the years from 1962. The PF Commissioner, in the relevant previous year, had revised the persons who could be categorised as its employees, and consequently the demand regarding the contributions on account of PF of its employees, was revised, and to the extent of Rs. 2,92,12,829, the liability got reduced. The claim of the appellant firm was that, the reduction in demand by the Provident Fund Commissioner, had two elements. The first element represented Rs. 2,26,41,195, a liability, that was taken over from Delhi Tambakoo Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (DTU) and the second element represented, the liability that was provided by the appellant firm, in its books over the years. The appe...
Krone Aktingesellschaft and anr. Vs. Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ463
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction in this Court against the defendants to desist forthwith from using, in any manner whatsoever, the casing, design/construction described and claimed by the plaintiff in its Indian Patent No. 164857 dated 12th May, 1987. (2) I.A.NO. 1069/92, under Order 39 Rules I and2C.P.C. has been filed in the suit for an Ex par lead interim injunction order.. This Court on January 31,1992, restrained the defendant from using, in any manner, whatsoever the casing, design/construction similar or deceptively similar to the casing/design/construction of the plaintiff in its Indian Patent No. 164857 dated May 12, 1987. (3) I.A.NO. 1992 of 92 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . has been filed by the defendant for vacating the ex parte ad interim order made in favor of the plaintiffs and for declaring the patent as invalid. for the reasons as specified in the said application. Both the applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »