Delhi Court August 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.
Kanwarjit Singh Vs. Air India International
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ210
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The facts need not delaineus for long. Sometime in September, 1988 Air India, a Corporation constituted under the Air Corporation Act, 1953 and being wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India, invited applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Flight Pursers. Since the petitioner fulfillled all the necessary prescribed conditions, he too applied for the same. and in response, was called for a written test which he passed successfully. (2) Thereafter, he crossed the hurdle of the Group discussion/preliminary interview. This was on December 14, 1988. As on January 19, 1989 he successfully appeared for the final interview also, by a letter dated ll/15th May, 1990 (Annexure V) he was informed that he had been considered suitable for appointment as an Assistant Flight Purser subject to his being found medically 'Fit' by the Corporation Medical Officer and that he should present himself for medical examination on or before May 30, 1990. (3) As the...
income-tax Officer Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD396(Delhi)
1. The appeal by the revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 17-9 1985 of CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi.We are passing a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of automobile tyres and tubes. For the assessment year 1976-77 for which the previous year ended on 31st October, 1975, a loss return at Rs. 14,62,16,780 had originally been filed by the assessee which had been revised to Rs. 14,79,22,110. Assessment was completed vide order dated 25th September, 1980 by virtue of which net loss was computed at Rs. 80,34,236. The provisions of Section 144B regarding forwarding of the draft assessment order and consideration of the objections by the IAC have been followed in this case, 3. Assessee succeeded in part in an appeal before the CIT(A) and the revenue is aggrieved by the relief allowed to the assessee. Cross objection has been filed by the assessee.4. We shall first deal with ...
Jay Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD594(Delhi)
1. These cross appeals, one by the assessee and one by the Revenue, are disposed of by this consolidated order. The impugned order is that of CIT (Appeals)-13, New Delhi dated 9-2-1988. Assessee is a limited company. During the previous year relevant to assessment year 1982-83 assessee had changed the previous year from ending 31 st March to ending 30th September. The change in the previous year had been allowed by the Assessing Officer subject to the condition that the previous year for assessment year 1982-83 will consist of six months ie., from 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981 and that the depreciation for this period would be allowed on a proportionate basis for a period of six months only.Thus the assessment has been made for a period of six months only.Assessee had declared a loss in its return filed on 8-6-1982 in pursuance to which assessment was made at an income of Rs. 1,05,90,510.Assessee appealed to CIT (Appeals)-13, New Delhi and succeeded in part.Whereas assessee is in appeal again...
M.L. Dujari, F.C.A. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT644
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The main point raised before us was that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of sub-Section (5) and sub-Section (9) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1991 inasmuch as reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given and the copies of the books of accounts which were seized were not supplied to the petitioner before making a summary assessment. (3) On a consideration of the matter, we find that at the time of seizure, a punchnama was prepared by which Rs.95,000.00 in cash and numerous shares worth Rs. 40 Lakhs were recovered and complete details of shares were mentioned in punchnama, copy whereof was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was given opportunity to explain and he made statements and furnished Explanationn which runs into numerous pages starting from page 278 to page 362 of the paper book before us. (4) Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not supplied c...
Bimla Khanna Vs. M.S. Pawar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT272
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.1992 passed by Shri Z.S.Solanki, Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi whereby be has dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. (2) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent- defendant on the allegation that the petitioner-plaintiff is a tenant in respect of one shop forming part of property bearing Municipal No. 618-A, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi and the respondents-defendants have threatened her to dispossess her forcibly. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, the municipal number of the house in fact is T-618-A and not T-618-A as mentioned in the plaint. In fact property No. T-618-A has been given by the landlord privately and now it transpires that the actual number is T-618-B and not T-618-A. In order t...
M. L. Dujari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Del)18
ORDER UNDER S. 132(5)--Reasonable opportunity of being heard.--The point raised was that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (9) of s. 132 inasmuch as reasonable opportunity was not given and the copies of the books of accounts which were seized were not supplied to the petitioner before making a summary assessment.HELD :It is found that at the time of seizure, a punchnama was prepared by which Rs. 95,000 in cash and numerous shares worth Rs. 40 lakhs were recovered and complete details of shares were mentioned in punchnama, copy whereof was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was given opportunity to explain and he made statements and furnished Explanationn which runs into numerous pages.APPLICATION :Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) distinguished.APPLICATION :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.132(5)Income Tax Act 1961 s.132(9)Search and seizure--RETENTION OF BOOKS, ETC. BEYOND 180 DAYS--Authorised ...
Giggles (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD388(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 16-1-1991, 31-1-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi.2. The assessee is trading in articles of stationery, gifts and presentation and other novelty items. The company was formed some time in 1981. It has also got branch office at Bangalore and Calcutta. For the financial year ended on 31-3-1987 the assessing officer found that an action was taken under Section 133A on 11-3-1987, i.e., just 20 days before the close of the accounting year when physical inventory of stock was drawn, the value of which was arrived at Rs. 9,62,000 plus.The stock was taken physically on actual basis and there was no record in respect of quantitative details, i.e., in respect of goods inward as also goods outward because as per the assessee it was not possible to maintain such details on records. Therefore, to find out whether the stock of Rs, 9,62,000 plus could be held by the assessee as per the books of accounts maintained, a trad...
P.K. Singhal Vs. Nattional Airport Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ524; ILR1993Delhi269
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The petitioner was working as Deputy Director (Communications) and vide order dated 7th October, 1991 be was appointed as an Airport Director at Srinagar. The letter of appointment stated that his appointment was on ad hoc basis till further orders and that his appointment will not account for the purpose of seniority nor make him eligible for promotion to the next higher grade. Vide order dated 15th June, 1992 the Petitioner was posted to Madras as Deputy Director (Communications) with immediate effect. It is this letter which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.(2) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon C.B.Dubey & Ors. Vs, Union of India & Ors. 75 Slj 634 and Kuldeep Chand Sharma v. Delhi Administration. 1978(2) Slr 379, is that the petitioner could not have been reverted to his substantive post except for one of the four reasons mentioned in C.B. Dubey's case. Reliance in C.B.Dubey's case (supra) is placed on th...
Shiv Silk Mills Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ180; 1993(41)ECC97
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The issue involved in this writ petition falls within a very narrow compass. Before proceeding to determine the issue, it is necessary to briefly notice the facts of the case. (2) The petitioner is a processor, purchasing fabrics for embroidery work and effecting clearances of the embroidered fabric. According to the petitioner's case, the goods were purchased directly from the mills, and at times from the open market, and it was not possible to ensure that the goods were received in mill packed condition, or were accompanied by documents certifying their duty paid character. (3) The dispute arose in respect to the extent of the liability of the petitioner for payment of excise duty on the goods cleared by them. The period involved is June 1970 to March 1971. A demand of short levy, amounting to Rs. 13,891.45 was raised by means of show cause notice dated 12.5.1971, alleging that the petitioner were clearing cotton fabrics, after making embroidery, assessable unde...
Arvind Bhushanchugh and ors. Vs. Promilla @ Ritu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT112
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Sh. Arvind BhushanChugh, petitioner No. 1, was married to Dr. Promilla alias Ritu, according to Hindu rites on 30th March, 1985. No child is born from this wed lock. After the marriage differences arose between the parties and marriage broke down irretrievably. On account of the fact that the respondent's 'Stri Dhan' was kept by the petitioner she lodged a report with the police for return of her dowry articles as well as for cruelty on the basis of which a case was registered vide Fir No. 422/86, under Sections 406/498A/34 Ipc, Beside Arvind Bhushan, his elder brother Jagdish Lal Chugh, his sister-in-law Smt. Kusum Bala Chugh and his mother Smt. Sita Devi were also made as accused. On account of the differences between the parties, the present case was got registered. In the meantime compromise was arrived at between the husband and wife, as a result of which they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. The marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent, by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »