Delhi Court April 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.
M/S. R. Murlidhar Reddy and Co. Vs. National Projects Construction Cor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi68; 1992(2)ARBLR295(Delhi); 1992(23)DRJ334; 1992RLR288
ORDER1. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for execution of a portion of the work of 'Contraction of Rajghat Masonary Dam and appurtenant works across the River Betwa at Rajghat, Lalitpur Distt. U.P.' The work was awarded to the petitioner sometime in December, 1984. The stipulated date of commencement of the work, was December 31, 1984. The work was to be completed by June 30, 1988. The value of the contract was over Rs. 2 crores. It is admitted by both the parties that the work came to a stand still in December, 1986 or thereabout. The balance work, which was left unfinished, was to the tune of Rs. 209 lakhs. The case of the petitioner was that the execution of the work was impeded anddelayed and could not be completed because of the defaults of the respondent. It was further alleged that the site and quarries were not handed over by the respondent in time with the result that the establishment of the petitioner remained deployed for a long period of time caus...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Grandlay Electricals (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR591(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding the sum of Rs. 18,499 is not disallowable as entertainment expenditure ?' 2. It is unfortunate that the statement of the case as drawn up by the Tribunal lacks clarity, to say the least. Learned counsel for the Department has, however, taken us through the orders passes by the authorities under the Act. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessed had made a claim for deduction of sale promotion expense. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that, out of the total expenses claimed by it, a sum of Rs. 37,498 was in nature of entertainment expense. The Income-tax Officer applied the provisions of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and allowed a deduction of Rs. 5,000 and disallowed deduction of the balance o...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudershan Talkies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Del)368; [1993]200ITR153(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The statement of the case has been drawn up and a reference has been made to this court in respect of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 arising out of I.P.A. Nos. 3333, 3334 and 3335 of 1972-73 before the Tribunal. The facts as stated by the Income-tax Tribunal are that in respect of these assessment years, assessments were framed on total in respect of these assessment years, assessments were framed on total incomes of Rs. 1,57,707, Rs. 1,98,974 and Rs. 2,83,653, respectively. The assessed had not complied with the provisions requiring the payment of advance tax at the time when the assessment orders were passed. The Income-tax Officer while passing the assessment orders did not charge any interest under section 217 of the Act. There was also no mention made in the assessment orders or in any separate order passed regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 273 of the Act. 2. As the said assessment orders appeared to be prejudicial to th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudershan Talkies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Del)165; [1993]201ITR289(Delhi)
1. These references are connected with Income-tax References Nos. 48-50 of 1975 (Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies - see : [1993]200ITR153(Delhi) , which have been disposed of by judgment delivered today. Briefly stated, the facts are that, in respect of assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer passed assessment orders but did not levy any interest under section 217 nor initiate proceedings under section 273(b)of the Act because of the non-compliance by the assessed with the provisions of section 212 of the Act. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax then exercised jurisdiction under section 263 and set aside the assessment order and directed the Income-tax Officer to charge interest under section 217 and also to initiate penalty proceedings under section 273(b) of the Act. The decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax was set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax in so far as it related to the charging of interest under s...
Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Del)5; ILR1992Delhi1037
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred a few questions of law to this court. Though most of the questions are overlapping, we shall, however, deal with the questions separately. For the assessment year 1968-69 : In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the Tribunal has referred six questions of law to this court. These are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of blocks and toolings of Rs. 22,750 acquired and used in the previous year 1967-68 relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the grounds regarding the computation of capital employed in the industrial undertaking and the quantum of deduction und...
Patodia and Co. Vs. the Bombay Woollen Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ611
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 2,33,249.00. The facts alleged in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is further averred that in July, 1976 the defendant appointed the plaintiff as its agent for sale of knitting yam manufactured by the former on consignment basis. According to the plaintiff the arrangement between the parties was that the defendant was to pay to the plaintiff commission at the rate of 2% and brokerage @ 1/2% on the sale price of theoods. The plaintiff maintains that it was entitled to be reimbursed by the defendant on account of the expense's incurred for taking delivery of the goods including their transport and storage, besides amounts spent on traveling undertaken in connection with the agency business. Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to the arrangement the defendant was sending goods through rail/road transport and the plaintiff had been taking delivery of t...
Devki Nandan @ Raju Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ156
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Devki Nandan @ raju has filed this writ petition under Article of the Constitution of India read with Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer that the detention order dated 19th August, 1991 passed by Shri Mahinder Prashad, respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') be quashed and that the respondent be restrained from implementing the said detention order.(2) On 19th August, 1991 in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Act Shri Mahinder Prashad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India and a specially empowered officer directed that Devki Nandan @ Raju son of Shri Banwari Lal resident of A-6/8 Rana Pratap Bagh be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange and from dealing in smuggled goods oth...
Ganga Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ393; 48(1992)DLT714
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) Learned Counsel for the parties state that since a short question is involved, the matter may be disposed of forthwith. Accordingly we proceed to dispose of the same. (3) Jagan Nath was picked up by Constable Anil Kumar of P.S, Lahori Gate in the wee hours of May 2, 1991 on suspicion of being involved in a criminal case. It is not disputed that when Jagan Nath was apprehended he was hale and hearty. On the same day Jagan Nath, who was having 16 injuries on his person,was brought to St. Stephen Hospital from P.S. Lahori Gate in an unconscious state. Jagan Nath never regained consciousness and succumbed to his injuries on May 10, 1991. An inquest was conducted by the S.D.M. Kotwali. According to the inquest report the deceased before his death was given severe beating in the police station. According to the post mortem report the death in the case was a result of cerebral damage consequent to injury on the front parietal region. The report further stat...
Harish Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Vimal Wadhawan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT246; 1992(23)DRJ440
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The facts leading to the revision petition are: That the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent as well as mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of Barsati Room and Bath Room. The plaintiff later on wanted to amend the plaint by amending the relief clause regarding permanent as well as mandatory injunction into a suit for possession, the valuation of which was fixed at Rs.10,000.00 . p73 There is no dispute between the parties that the jurisdiction of Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, Sub Judge Fourth Class, was only up to Rs.1,000.00 . thereforee, in case the amendment is allowed, it will result in ousting the jurisdiction of the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge has, thereforee, dismissed the application for amendment relying upon a decision in E.R.R.M.H.S. Committee v. P. Atchayya AIR 1957 And Pra 10 which lays down that the court cannot permit a plaint sought to be amended as to ousts its own jurisdiction. The present revision has bee...
Shanti Bhushan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD562(Delhi)
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 26-10-1987 passed by the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1983-84.2. The assessee Shri Shanti Bhushan is a Senior Advocate, practising before the Supreme Court and various High Courts in the country. In 1978 the assessee suffered heart attack and was hospitalized for six weeks. In April 1982, the assessee underwent a coronary by-pass surgery operation in Houston, U.S.A. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 1,74,000 incurred on coronary by-pass surgery was an allowable expenditure under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the assessee, heart is 'plant' within the meaning of Section 31 and, therefore the expenditure incurred on repairs of heart, which is an integral part of the human being, was allowable under Section 31. It was pointed out that coronary by-pass surgery has directly improved the competence of the assessee and his earning capacity. It was po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »