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.
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Film Angels
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD383(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 7th October, 1988 passed by Shri V.K. Misra, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut. The question to be decided here is what is the extent or range of the material which the Assessing Officer can consider for the purpose of taking decision in accordance with Section 183(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 183 as it stood at the relevant time was as under : (a) may determine the tax payable by the firm itself on the basis of the total income of the firm; or (b) if, in his opinion, the aggregate amount of the tax payable by the firm if it were assessed as a registered firm and the tax payable by the partners individually if the firm were so assessed would be greater than the aggregate amount of the tax payable by the firm under clause (a) and the tax which would be payable by the partners individually, may proceed to make the assessment under Sub-section (1) of Section 182 as if the firm were a registered firm; and, where the procedur...
Vasanti Sethi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD447(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are directed against the order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi. They involve common controversy and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The controversy is in connection with addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. On 10th December, 1987 during the search operations under Section 132 of the Act, the department found that deposits aggregating in all to Rs. 21.67 lakhs in the name of the assessee as also in the names of the assessee's minor children were found. On the day of search the assessee admitted ownership of the deposits in a statement recorded. In a statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee denied having any knowledge as to the sources of the deposits.All the deposits were with National Confederation of Bank Employees Society Ltd. On 8th January, 1988 i.e., after a month of the statement at the time of search, she again admitted the ownershi...
Kishore Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ253; II(1992)DMC331; 1992(23)DRJ482
ORDER1. The petitioner, Kishore Kumar has been charged with the offence of harassment, cruelty and death of his wife, Smt. Yashoda on 5th February, 1989. The petitioner was married to Yashoda on 12th November, 1986. The petitioner was not satisfied with the dowry articles given. He returned the T.V. and demanded the cash amount in lieu thereof. The deceased, Yashoda had also been complaining about the harassment and torture inflicted on her by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The petitioner at the instance of his parents had also been harassing his wife. She attended the 'Pooja' ceremony at the house of Hira Lal and there she narrated about the harassment given to her. The parents of deceased Yashoda received a telephonic message about her death on 5th February, 1989 at about 10.35 a.m. The postmortem report opined that the death was due to some obscure poisoning. It was in this background that the case against the petitioner is registered under Section 498A/304B, I.P.C. vide F.I.R...
Smt. Vasanti Sethi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)45TTJ(Del)503
ORDERGORADIA, A. M. :All these appeals are directed against the order dt. 5th Sept., 1991 passed by the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi. They involve common controversy and, thereforee, they are disposed of by this common order. The controversy is in connection with addition under S. 69 of the IT Act, 1961.2. On 10th Dec., 1987, during the search operations under S. 132 of the Act, the Department found that deposits aggregating in all to Rs. 21.67 lakhs in the name of the assessed as also in the names of the assesseds minor children were found. On the day of search the assessed admitted ownership of the deposits in a statement recorded. In a statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings the assessed denied having any knowledge as to the sources of the deposits. All the deposits were with National Confederation of Bank Employees Society Ltd. On 8th Jan., 1988, i.e., after a month of the statement at the time of search, she again admitted the ownership and also declared the amount...
Sh. Ashok Kumar Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3821
ORDER1. Normally bail when granted is not to be cancelled unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The grounds for cancellation of bail are; interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to the accused. thereforee the consideration for granting the bail are different than the consideration which are to be weighed in mind at the time of considering the application for cancellation of bail. There are five cases where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and re-committed to the Jail : (1) Where on bail he commits the very same offence for which he was being tried or has been convicted; (2) if he hampers the investigation; (3) if he hampers with the evidence; (4) if he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground or beyond the control of his sureties; and finally (5) if he commits acts of violence in revenge. The Court before ...
Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Del)13; [1993]200ITR329(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Pursuant to a direction issued under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Allahabad High Court, the Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court : '1. Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at the finding that the applicant had not proved that the expenditure of Rs. 55,322 representing the commission paid to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the material on record, the Tribunal could have legally come to a conclusion that the amount of Rs. 55,322 paid as commission to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation did not represent an expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessed made a claim for deduction of Rs. 55,322 stated to have been paid as commission to one M/s. Standard Electrode...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR529
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Normally bail when granted is not to be cancelled unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The grounds for cancellation of bail are; interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to the accused. thereforee the consideration for granting the bail are different than the consideration which are to be weighed in mind at the time of considering the application for cancellation of bail. There are five cases where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and re-committed to the Jail : (1) Where on bail he committed the very same offence for which he was being tried or has been convicted; (2) if he hampers the investigation; (3) if he hampers with the evidence; (4) if he runs away to a foreign country, or gone underground or beyond the control of his sureties and finally (5) if he commits acts of violence in revenge. The Co...
Karam Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT313; 1992(24)DRJ550
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned order of Shri Kaushal Kumar, IA.S. Joint Secretary & Chief Settlement Com missioner, Department of Rehabilitation, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi with the delegated power of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 dated 7th November, 1978 (P-12) and for direction that the property in dispute should be allotted to the petitioner. (2) The relevant facts stated in the writ petition are that property NO.XVI/ 256-257 (New), Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was an acquired evacuee property and was scheduled for auction on 24th January, 1956. The petitioner is in occupation of property No.257 (New) and one Smt.Parkash Wanti is in occupation of 256 aforementioned. On having received representation from Smt. Parkash Wanti and also from the petitioner Shri Karam Singh that the valuation of the property is not above the allottable limit of Rs.10,000.0...
S. Jagir Singh Vs. S. Wasawn Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi381; 48(1992)DLT113; 1992(24)DRJ240; 1992RLR424
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) In this second appeal filed by the tenant, the question in dispute falls in a very narrow compass. But first brief narration of facts for the disposal of this appeal is essential. (2) The respondent/landlord S. Wasan Singh Filed an eviction petition against the appellant S. Jagir Singh invoking Clauses (e) and (h) of Provided to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act). The grounds pleaded, in so far as section 14(1)(h) is concerned, was that the tenant had built and acquired vacant possession of premises No. 41, Ranjan Road, Adrash Nagar, Delhi. The other is not being noticed because both the courts below have held against the landlord and that has not been agitated. The dispute that survives for consideration is as 'to whether an eviction order could be passed in favor of the landlord under section 14(1)(h) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) The eviction petition was filed on 3.6.1969 and this happened to be ...
Saroj Tuneja Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)Crimes775; 48(1992)DLT118; 1992(24)DRJ234
Vsha Ivlehka, J.(1) Mrs, Saroj Taneja petitioner has assailed the order of detention passed against her on 5th June, 1991 under See.3(1) to the Conservation of Foreign Exchange arid Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (herein after called the Cofaposa Act) served on her on 17th July, 1991. Detention order was issued by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. It is slated therein that with a view to preventing her from smuggling goods it was necessary that she should be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. With this detention order the grounds of detention were also supplied to the petitioner.(2) In nut shell, the case as set up against the petitioner is that the petitioner arrived at Calcutta Airport from Singapore by Singapore Airlines Flight No. SQ-416 on 30th April. 1991. On the same flight SITU. Shakuntla Sodhi was also traveling and alighted at Calcutta Airport with the petitioner. The petitioner and Smt. Sodhi were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »