Delhi Court May 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.
Prem Prakash Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD130(Delhi)
1. The assessee, an individual, has filed this appeal and has raised the issue relating to deduction claimed under Section 80RR on the share income derived by him from the firm M/s. Ved & Co., which firm carries on the business of photography and journalism.2. Appearing for the assessee Shri Hari Harlal submitted that the partners of the firm are professional photographers/journalists and in the exercise of their professional expertise certain foreign firms had engaged them in production of films etc. In regard to the professional services so rendered by the partners of the firm the clients paid them in foreign currency. The firm filed its return and the share of the partners have been determined on that basis and accordingly the assessments have been made in the hands of the partners. His submission was that the authorities below have not appreciated the fact that the income derived by the firm, later on distributed to the various partners in accordance with their profit-sharing ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mohinder Kumar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD384(Delhi)
1. The revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) cancelling a penalty of Rs. 43,265 imposed on the assessee by the ITO under Section 271-B of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. In this case. the return of income was filed on 21-11-1989 as against due date of 31-10-1989. The audit report in form No. 3CB dated 26-9-1989 was also filed along with the said return. Being of the view that the said report had not been filed along with the return of income vis-avis Sub-section (1) of Section 139 the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271-B and issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. In reply, it was contended that no default under Section 271-B was committed, inasmuch as, the said section envisaged the audit of accounts to be completed and the audit report obtained prior to a particular date and that being 31-10-1989 in the present case. The further requirement of law, according to the assessee was the filing of the said report along with the return of income and ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Continental Device India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Del)370; [1992]198ITR680(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, out of the orders passed in the appeals filed by the assessed as well as the Department, the following four questions of law have been referred to this court section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that borrowed capital should not be excluded in computing the capital employed for the purpose of section 80J 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that for the purpose of section 80J, average of capital employed during the entire accounting year should be taken into accounting year 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that for the purposes of computation of capital under section 80J the depreciable assets should be taken a...
P.C. Alexander and ors. Vs. Government of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: ILR1993Delhi176
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petition is under Section 7 of the' Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter called the Act). It relates to (lie Nehru Trust for Cambridge University (hereinafter called the Trust). The petitioners are its trustees and are seeking direction with regard to the proposed amendment of clauses 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed dated June 28, 1983. (2) Clauses 8 and 12 of the Trust Deed of June 28, 1983 are extracted below : 8.'There shall initially be eleven Trustees of the Trust. Out of the said eleven Trustees of the said Trust Four Trustees shall be nominees of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and two Trustees of the said Trust shall be nominees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund. At the first meeting of the Trustees appointed by these presents, the Trustees shall nominate a twelfth Trustee, who shall have the same power and duties and obligations under 'hese presents. TMe said twelfth Trustee shall retire with the Trustees in. part 11 of the Schedule he...
J.N. Verma and Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice Delhi High Court and Anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: ILR1993Delhi598; 1993LabIC14
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioners are employees of 'his Court. Petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time was working in :he post of Assistant and petitioner No. 2 as Senior Stenographer. The service of the petitioners is governed tinder the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Items 4 and 5 of Schedule Ii read with Rule 7 of the Rules provide for appointment to the posts of Superintendentand Court Master. The extracts of the said rule at the relevant time read thus: S.Category of Minimum qualification Mode of appointment No. past prescribed for appointment to the post 1. Xx X 2. X X X 3. X. X X 4. Superintendent 5 years service in any (a) 25% of the vacant (Promotion/ of the posts of categories posts by promotion on Selection Post) 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 the basis of senicrity of Class Iii mentioned cum-suitability from is Schedule I joint seniority list of categories 9,10,11,13, 14 and 16 of Class...
income Tax Officer Vs. Mohinder Kumar.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)45TTJ(Del)326
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :The Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) cancelling a penalty of Rs. 43,265 imposed on the assessed by the ITO under S. 271B of the IT Act, 1961.2. In this case, the return of income was filed on 21st Nov., 1989 as against due date of 31st Oct., 1989. The audit report in Form No. 3CB, dt. 26th Sept., 1989 was also filed along with the said return. Being of the view that the said report had not been filed along with the return of income vis-a-vis sub-s. (1) of S. 139 the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under S. 271B and issued a show cause notice to the assessed. In reply, it was contended that no default under S. 271B was committed, inasmuch as, the said section envisaged the audit of accounts to be completed and the audit report obtained prior to a particular date and that being 31st Oct., 1989 in the present case. The further requirement of law, according to the assessed was the filing of the said report along with the return of income...
Assessing Officer Vs. Shree Gopal Motors (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)132
ORDERO. ANAND RAM, A.M. :This appeal is directed against the order of CIT(A), Agra dt. 30th Nov., 1988. Shree Gopal Motors (P) Ltd., was assessed for the asst. yr. 1986-87 by an assessment order under S. 143(3) dt. 30th March, 1988 determining the total income at Rs. 1,56,530. The additions made in the assessment order were disputed before the CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of the assessed. The present appeal is by the Revenue.2. The first issue in this appeal relates to the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 28,990 made under S. 43B. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said amount was paid beyond the previous year. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) noted that the assessed had deposited Rs. 28,900 as sales-tax vide cheque No. 858363 on 30th April, 1986, i.e., within the time allowed by the ST Act. As the amount was not payable before 31st March, 1986, under the provisions of r. 41 of the ST Act, the CIT(A) held that the addition was not justified and deleted it....
State (C.B.i.) Vs. Sri Lachmandas Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3555; 1992(2)Crimes790; 1992(23)DRJ330
ORDER1. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called the appellant) registered corruption cases against the present four respondents under S. 120B, I.P.C. and S. 5(2) read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the investigation the appellant could not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position by the respondents. In view of lack of evidence the appellant submitted a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, Delhi for closure of the case. 2. The Special Judge, Delhi by the impugned order rejected the request of the appellant and directed that at the first instance the prosecution should approach the concerned sanctioning authority before coming to the Court and further held that the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was premature and thereforee not acceptable. 3. It is against the impugned order dated August 16, 1991 that the present criminal revision has been preferred by the appellant inter alias...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Del)60; [1992]197ITR431(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75, has stated the case under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and referred the following three question to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the reimbursement of medical expenses to an employee is not 'perquisites' within the meaning of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the quantum of perquisites to an employee on account of rent for residential accommodation or concession in the matter of rent had to be computed with reference to the expenditure in the hands of the employer and not with reference to rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in h...
Prakash Road Lines (P) Ltd. Vs. New Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT304
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12/10/1977 passed by Shri Z.S. Lohat, Sub-Judge Third Class, Delhi whereby certain issues were framed.(2) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the plaintiffs-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,098.74. It appears that the Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a petition for substitution of the name of plaintiff No. 1which was allowed vide order dated 1.6.1976 by the trial Court. Consequently the plaintiffs filed the amended plaint on 6.7.1976 incorporating therein illegally paras 1, 6 and the verification. The amendment of paras 1, 6 and the verification was not allowed by the trial Court.(3) The petitioner-defendant filed an application dated 15.4.1977 under Order 14 Rules 1, 2(a) & (b) and 5 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure proposing certain issues to be framed.(4) Vide impugned order dated 12.10.1977, the learned trial Court framed the following issues : '(1)Whether the suit is barr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »