Delhi Court June 1993 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hari Chand Sri Gopal.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)48TTJ(Del)151

ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A. M. :The following ground is raised in Revenues appeal directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,92,43,626 without proper appreciation of the facts brought by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order.'2. The respondent in this case is a registered firm deriving income from manufacture and trading in Zarda, Betel Paste and Pan ka Masala. For the assessment year under appeal, viz., 1985-86 is filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 67,69,500 on 30th Aug., 1985 which was later on revised on 30th Sept., 1985 to a figure of Rs. 66,82,500. As observed in the assessment order the accounts of the assessed are audited by qualified chartered accountants.3. During the year under consideration the turnover of the assessed increased by 22% over the preceding assessment year while the gross profit (in terms of rupees) increased by 25% over the same per...

G.D. Malhotra Vs. Lizu Barbara and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 is carrying on the business as builder and respondent No. 1 is the head and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are partners of respondent No. 2.The complainant is the owner of plot No. A-12, Sector 40, Noida. He asked the respondents in Decembers'90 to build a house on the said plot. It is alleged that it was agreed between them that the respondent would charge him @ Rs 245/- per sq. ft. for the construction. The said rate included the price of the material as well labour. In addition to that the complainant would pay Rs. 28/- per sq. ft. for constructing the boundary wall. The construction of the house was to be completed by 28th February '91. 2. After the work was started by the respondents it was found by the complainant that the construction was going on at a very slow pace, and this fact was brought to their notice. Respondent No. 4 in March' 91 sought extension of time and promised that the building would be completed by...

M/S. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. Indian Airlines

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant is carrying on the business of manufacturing and bulk supply of photographic materials. They booked for air-carriage of photographic materials with the respondent to various persons at different destinations as detailed in Appendix I. It is alleged that due to negligence and wilful mis-conduct of the respondent and their employees, the goods were not delivered at the destinations inspite of the fact that these were placed in the loading containers. They also failed to return the goods to the complainant inspite of repeated requests. They have suffered the loss as detailed in Appendix I for non-delivery of the goods. In addition to the price of the goods, it is alleged, they are entitled to interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of booking till the date of filing the complaint which comes to Rs. 56,216/-. It is further alleged, that the complainant served a notice on the respondent through their Counsel and they paid Rs. 5...

Lal Chand Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum-II dated 5.11.92 dismissing the complaint. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant issued two cheques bearing Nos. 106826 and 106827 for Rs. 13,400/- each in favour of UTI for purchasing two 1000 US-64 units. The cheques were presented for encashment on behalf of the UTI; cheque bearing No. 106827 was honoured by the respondent, whereas the other cheque bearing No. 106826 was returned with the remarks 'signature differ'. As a result his application for purchase of 1000 units was cancelled by the UTI. 3. The complainant approached the Bank Manager, who on his representation wrote a letter to the UTI on 18.11.89 that the cheque had been returned inadvertently by the Bank and it be presented again. The UTI did not accede to the request of the Manager. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for recovery of compensation. 4. The complaint was contested b...

Govind Ram and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)31; 51(1993)DLT67

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) On 30/04/1993 the petitioners were arrested under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) and under Section 132 of the Customs Act.(2) On 12/05/1993 the learned Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate. Delhi dismissed the bail application on the ground that there being 'sufficient grounds' to believe that the provisions of Tada wereattracted, he was not competent to entertain the bail application. Subsequently, the petitioners moved the Designated Court which, by its order dated 20/05/1993, dismissed the bail application. The last paragraph of the order may be reproduced with profit. It runs as follows : 'AT the stage of bail, I am of the view that when prima facile there appears atleast some offence of non-bailable nature and possibility of other heinous offences having been committed (which only further...

Pure Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. (Asstt. Ci ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Del)225

ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. :These are cross-appeals by the assessed and the Revenue involving common issues of, whether the land that is situated at Worli, Bombay, that is owned by the appellant-company, has beentransferred, attracting the provisions of capital gains tax. The other related issue is, whether there was any transfer of the said land in the asst. yr. 1982-83, because the agreement between the assessed and the developer was entered during the previous year relevant to that assessment year. It is in this context that the Department had reopened the assessment for the asst. yr. 1982-83, which is being challenged by the appellant, both on validity of the reopening as well as on merits. We shall deal with the aspect of reopening, coupled with merits, as these are inseparable and deal with rest of the issues as had been raised by the parties before us.Asst. yr. 1982-83-Appeal by the assessed2. The facts in brief are that, the assessed-company, had a plot of land No. 9, Schem...