Delhi Court August 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Ava Spicex (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD50(Delhi)
1. This appeal for assessment year 1985-86 by the assessee, being a private limited company, is directed against the order dated 11 -05-1989 of CIT (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi. The issue involved is relating to the allowance of carry forward of loss under the provisions of Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For assessment year 1985-86 for which the previous year ended on 23-12-1984 assessee had filed a return on 23-6-1986 declaring loss at Rs. 2,22,174. Assessing Officer vide order dated 22-9-1987 computed the loss at Rs. 1,38,427. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee did not file the return within the time allowed under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, the benefit of carry forward of business loss, in view of Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, would not be allowed. Assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals), and claimed that it had filed extension applications from time to time seeking extension up to 30-6-1986 and since, the return had been f...
Chawla Brass and Aluminium Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD374(Delhi)
1 to 7. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.] 8. Ground No. 5 is relating to addition of Rs. 2,74,600 on account of unexplained cash credits assessed as income from undisclosed sources.Assessing Officer had noticed credits in the name of family members of the partners as under : Assessee had furnished confirmations from these creditors and proof that these amounts had been received by means of cheques. They were also claimed to be regular income-tax payers. The Assessing Officer summoned the creditors, being the family members of the partners of the firm and recorded their statements. On analysing the statements, he was of the view that the credits in the name of the family members of the partners were not genuine and that the assessee had introduced his own money in its books of accounts. He accordingly assessed the entire sum of Rs. 2,74,600 as income of the firm from undisclosed sources. The first appellate authority held that under Section 68 of the ...
Srf Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD504(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a limited company, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals) and has raised as many as nine grounds of appeal, before us. This appeal has two distinct parts, issues raised as grounds 1 & 2 are related to the computation of the book profit under Section 115J of the Act and issues raised as grounds 3 to 9 relate to the computation of the profit and gains from business or profession within the meaning of Sections 28 to 43A of the Act. The counsel addressed us initially with reference to grounds numbering 3 to 9, followed by the grounds numbering 1 & 2 and we are dealing with the issues as raised, as argued before us, in that order.2. The assessee, has raised a very strange claim as its grounds of appeal No. 3 and had contended that, the statutory deduction under Section 37(2A) of the Act, of Rs. 5,000 is to be allowed from the profit of each of the business units, treating them to be separate undertakings. The contention was that, the authorit...
Lamba Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lamba Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi347; 1993(2)ARBLR509(Delhi); 1994(28)DRJ168
ORDER1. In this case, the plaintiff claims to be owner of copyright in a catalogue.2. The catalogue relates to machinery (Power Presses) manufactured by the Plaintiff, copyright wherein is alleged to have been infringed by another catalogue of the defendants.3. The plaintiff and defendants were carrying on business together at one time. They were functioning as partners and are real brothers. They were carrying on business in the name of 'ELBEE', 'L' standing for Lamba and 'B' for Brothers. These two alphabets LB made up in a word form of 'ELBEE'.4. On dissolution of partnership w.e.f. 01-04-1985 by a Deed of Dissolution dated 20-10-1985, the two brothers appear to have carried on business independently.5. The plaintiff says that the two brothers are litigating about the trade work 'ELBEE' in another proceeding, with which we are not concerned here.6. This suit is relatable to a 'catalogue', actually it is no more than a Coloured Brochure, which is claimed to have been made by one Mr. ...
Hans Raj Vs. the Administrator National Capital Territory of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)846; 52(1993)DLT27; 1993(27)DRJ184
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order of detention dated 17 April 1993 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, the second respondent under section 3(1) of the National Security Act, 1980. There are some other ancillary reliefs claimed and arising out of that order. (2) The detention order has still not been executed and the petitioner filed an application seeking stay of that order during pendency of the writ petition. On one hearing we directed that petitioner should appear in court in person. He defaulted and then on a subsequent date an application was filed by the petitioner that his personal presence be dispensed with and that petitioner shall abide by such order as this Court might pass in the matter. (3) The Natio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: I(1994)BC499; 1993(27)DRJ385; ILR1994Delhi212; [1994]205ITR98(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal J.1. This is petition under section 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, which has been referred to the Full Bench because the correctness of the observations in the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. : [1991]192ITR287(Delhi) was doubted.2. The respondent is a limited company which was incorporated on 27th April, 1983. Its business is of stocks and financing and in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, it showed a loss of Rs. 94,030 on sale of shares which had been purchased for Rs. 5,42,708. It also showed an income of Rs. 1,30,321 from interest and Rs. 15,348 from commission and discounting of bills. It filed a return showing a total net income of Rs. 12,433. The assessment proceedings commenced on May 29, 1986, and the return as filed was accepted and the assessment order was passed on June 11, 1986. It was also noted in the assessment order that the company had a declared paid up capital of Rs. 20...
Maharishi Dayanand Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)788; 51(1993)DLT554; 1993(27)DRJ223
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition file under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner is a society registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. There are seven respondents, these being (1) Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Urban Development, (2) Lt. Governor, Delhi, (3) Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, (4) Delhi Administration through the Secretary, Land & Building Department, (5) Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA'), (6) Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short), and (7) Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated 7 June 1990 issued under section 4 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 415/1 (0-8), 421/1-2 (2-8),426(7-ll),431 (4-10), 603/526/2 (3-17),527/ 2(3-8) and 525/1(2/5) totalling 24 bighas 7 bids was situated in the revenue estate of village Kasoompu...
Har Lal Vs. Gaon Sabha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT26
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against order of the Additional District Judge acting as Land Acquisition Court, dated November 30, 1978, by which in a reference petition under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act he had held that out of Khasra No. 183 located in revenue estate of Village Tuglaqabad, 3 Bighas of land stand vested in the Gaon Sabha and remaining 8 bids was is owned by the petitioner. (2) The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is that this Khasra number is part of his holding and no portion of the land comprised in this Khasra number could be vested in Gaon Sabha in view of Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). (3) Section 7 of the Act lays down that all rights of an individual proprietor or proprietors pertaining to waste lands, grazing or.......... shall with effect from the commencement of this Act be terminated in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (2) and under Sub-secti...
Nanik R. Pahilajani Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: 1993RLR628
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) [ED. facts : Petitioner is a citizen of India. In 1982, Dda announced registration for Vth Self Financing Scheme (SFS) and petitioner applied for it on 11.8.82. One of the condition was that applicant must not own a residential house in Delhi and if he is joint owner his share should not exceed 75 sq. yds. He was not entitled to this latter limit if house/flat is built by Dda or land owning Department. On 15.1.84, petitioner was informed that he had been allotted a flat at Sarita Vihar and he should pay the estimated cost by 4 Installments which petitioner did. He thus paid full sum of about Rs. 2 lakh by 21.12.89. Possession was not being given to him in spite of numerous written requests and he was forced to make personal enquiries when officials of Dda told him that they were contemplating cancellation of allotment as he owned a quarter. Petitioner then filed the W.P. contending that the quarter owned by him was sold away on 15.3.831. After detailing above facts,...
Rajbir Singh Vs. S.K.S. Yadav, Commissioner Workmen's Compensation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: 1996ACJ239; [1995(71)FLR358]; (1996)ILLJ91Del
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated August 26, 1993, passed by respondent No. 1 and for quashing of the proceedings being continued by Respondent No. 1. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner while in employment of Respondents 2 & 3 has suffered permanent injury by accident arising out of and in course of his employment whereby his right hand was crushed and was amputated from the wrist. As the petitioner was not given any compensation by the employer, thus he filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Vide order dated January 18, 1993, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 54,740/- was allowed to the petitioner as compensation and in addition, a penalty of 50% of the amount was imposed. Interest @ 6% per annum was also levied till the payment was to be made. The petitioner was also awarded Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. It appears that the Management o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »