Delhi Court June 1993 Judgments

R.N. Goel Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Del)251

ORDERJ.P. BENGRA, J.M. :This is an appeal by the assessed against an order of the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi pertaining to the asst. yr. 1980-81.2. The grievance if the assessed in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,18,800 as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessed and also disallowed interest relating to the expenses of Rs. 11,325 (though it is mentioned as Rs. 12,500).3. The assessed is engaged in purchase, process and sale of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessed had filed a return showing an income of Rs. 14,348. The first assessment was completed under s. 144 on total income of Rs. 3,18,800 (Rs. 1 lakh as business income and Rs. 2,18,800 as unexplained investment). However, the same was cancelled under s. 146 vide order dt. 31st March, 1983. Again assessment was completed on the same figure under s. 144. The assessed went in appeal and the assessment was set aside by the CIT(A) vide o...

Sandeep Mazumdar Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT398

Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail.(2) The petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 2 3/09/1991. The present application has been moved by the petitioner stating that certain facts were not mentioned. It is the admitted case of the parties that the marriage between them took place on 27/02/1987. The deceased Smt. Anuradha died in the intervening night of 25th and 26/10/1991. While issuing the post mortem report on 27/10/1991, the Doctor opined that the death was due to consumption of Baygon Spray.(3) Shri K.K. Sud, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed certain documents staling that the deceased was employed in P&T; Department and was receiving a monthly salary of over Rs. 2,000.00 while the petitioner husband was employed in Aristae Pharmaceuticals Company and was working as Regional Manager and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 7,379.00after deductions. From the d...

M/S. Paras Lubricants (P) Ltd Vs. M/S. Amtrex Ambience Ltd. and Anothe ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased in February, 1992 an Amtrex Shizuka Split type air-conditioner at a price of Rs. 91,355/- from M/s. Alpha Radios, respondent No. 2. The authorised dealer of M/s. Amtrex respondent No. 1, the manufacturer of the air conditioner. The A.C. was got installed in the office of the complainant by them through M/s. Techno Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineers and it was commissioned in July, 1992. It is alleged that there were various defects in the air-conditioner, which the respondents failed to rectify inspite of various visits of their engineers. Consequently they have prayed for the refund of total cost of the machine amounting to Rs. 91,355/- and damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. The complaint has not been contested. Notices were issued to the respondents but they did not appear inspite of service. Consequently, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 2. The first question that arises for de...

Sarojit Malik Vs. National Insurance Co. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant sent 11 packages of used household and personal effects from Delhi to Boston (Norfolk) through respondent No. 2. The packages were got insured by him with respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 1,70,000-00. Later, the insurance cover was increased from Rs. 1,70,000/- to Rs. 2,51,000/- as per the revised list of goods submitted by him, on payment of extra premium. 2. The delivery of goods were taken in Boston on 21st December, 1990 by the complainant and it was found that the furniture and household goods had been severely damaged during transit. He immediately informed M/s. W.K. Webster (Overseas) Ltd., who were the agents of respondent No. 1 about the damage to the goods, on 24-12-1990 and requested them to settle the claim. Since then the complainant had been pursuing the claim but still it has not been settled. 3. It is further pleaded that the damage to the goods is to the extent of 50% and therefore, ...

M/S. Sawhney Brothers Vs. Alitalia, Indira Gandhi International Airpor ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1.Briefly the facts are that M/s. Frorentia S.R.L. Plaza Menfedo Fanti, Rome (hereinafter referred to as the purchaser) placed an order for readymade garments to the complainant on 10.4.91. The complainant prepared the garments as per requirement of the purchaser and packed them in 40 bags. An invoice No. 4842 dated 29.6.91 for US dollars 14,656.57 was prepared alongwith other necessary documents. The consignment of 40 bags was delivered to the opposite party at New Delhi, who issued an Air Way Bill dated 2.7.91. The consignment was to be delivered to or at the instance of Banca Populare Di Sondrioa via Carlo, Alberto No. 61A Rome against presentation of the original airway bill and other documents. A sum of Rs. 29,763.00 was paid to the opposite party on acceptance of the consignment. 2.The complainant drew a bill dated 6.7.91 for US dollar 14,656.57 and delivered that to the Bank of Rajasthan, Janpath, New Delhi for collection alongwith other necessary documen...

Dr. Nanak Chand Vs. M/S. Gurshant Motors Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1.This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 12th October, 1992 by which his complaint has been dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant, his wife and his two sons made four applications for shares to the respondent. Such application was signed by the complainant and accompanied with a cheque of Rs. 1,500-00. The applicants were declared unsuccessful and therefore, they became entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them. However, the amount was not refunded to them. It is pleaded, that on their respresentation, they were asked by the respondent to furnish Indemnity Bonds which they did. Thereafter they received cheques on 25th July, 1991. 3. It is next pleaded that the other un-successful applicants received the refund amount on 15-12-1990 and the applicant should have also received the amounts on that date. Consequently, he requested the respondent to pay the interest on the amounts of the cheques, ...

inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ansal Properties and Industries ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)585

ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J. M. :Revenue is in appeal against the decision dt. 1st March, 1989 of the CIT(A)-I. The first ground of appeal is relating to annual letting value of three multi-storeyed buildings, namely, Ashajeet, Surya Kiran and Ansal Bhavan amounting to Rs. 1,05,59,160 having been deleted by the first appellate authority. assessed having constructed certain flats in the aforementioned buildings had sold the same, and handed over the possession of the flats to the buyers. However, the property had not been transferred by means of registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the view that assessed was liable to tax in respect of the annual letting value of the properties as they continued to be the de jure owner of the property.2. The CIT(A) followed his earlier orders for asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 to delete the income from the aforementioned properties which was assessed at Rs. 1,05,59,160.3. The view taken by the first appellate authority is in consonance with...

Rama Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)46ITD356(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises from the order dated 12-7-1989 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi (G.L. Garoo) and the only issue is with regard to the levy of additional tax under Section 104 of the Act.2. The assessee is closely held investment company deriving income from purchase and sale of shares and interest from advancing of the loans.For the previous year ended on 31-5-1985 the assessee had declared dividend of Rs. 1,00,000. The Assessing Officer found that the amount of distributable income was Rs. 1,53,782 and the statutory percentage for the compulsory distribution of the dividend being 90 per cent, the company should have declared dividend of a sum of Rs. 1,38,403. He, therefore, worked out shortfall of Rs. 38,403 and accordingly levied additional tax at 50 per cent of the shortfall of Rs. 19,202.3. It was explained to the Assessing Officer by the company, consequent to the show-cause notice proposing to levy additional tax, that (i) the assessment for...

S.K. Pruthi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant is the owner of Maruti Car bearing No. DIC 3915, which was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- for the period from 24.12.91 to 23.12.92. The car met with an accident on 10.12.92 at about 7 p.m. near Kalyan Vihar, Delhi-9. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Kingsway Camp, Delhi on 11.12.92. The complainant informed the respondent about the accident and requested them for deputing a surveyor for inspecting the car. They appointed Mr. Charanjit Sharma as the surveyor. 2. The complainant obtained the estimate of repairs/replacement of parts from M/s. Frontier Automobiles (hereinafter referred to as the repairer) and handed over the same to the respondent. The repairer had claimed Rs. 63,000/- for replacement of parts plus sales tax and Rs. 9,200/- as labour charges. It is further alleged, that it was suggested by the respondent that he should get the estimate of the repairs/ replacement of p...

G.L. Verma Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)46ITD360(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the DC (Appeals) whereby the latter has refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act was not appealable under Section 246 of the Income-tax Act.2. The appellant in this case is an individual deriving salary income from USAID. He filed a return of income showing gross salary income of Rs. 58,700, but claimed exemption under Section 10(8). In the statement of income appended along with the return the assessee by means of a note referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Bandhu Gupta [1985] 156 ITR 737 : 21 Taxman 228 in support of the claim for exemption. The other income shown by the assessee in the return was from "other sources", but after claiming deductions under Sections 80C, 80L and 80CCA the returned income was Rs. Nil.3. The Income-tax Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 143(1)(a...