Delhi Court August 1993 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.
Duggal and Co. Vs. Commissioner, Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Del)171; 1994RLR457
K.S. Bhatt, J.(1) The Income Tax Officer . had completed the assessment of the firm. Commissioner scrutinised the proceedings and noticed that Rs. 19,981.00 had been allowed as 'Interest' expenditure as it paid interest on borrowing @ 9-12% while it charged from Atul Glass Ind. interest @4% only. In these circumstances the Commissioner was of the view that prima facie case for taking action u/S. 263 of the Act existed. The Commissioner felt that the firm was probably diverting a part of its borrowings for its investment with M/s Atul Glass Ind. and allied concerns for considerations other than that of business. This order of the Commissioner was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal in support of its conclusion held as follows : 'ON a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we have to hold that the increasingly large advances made by the assessed firm to M/s Atul Glass Industries. (P) Ltd, o...
Bishwanath Traders and Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD476(Delhi)
1. Appellant, is a private limited company and its appeal is directed against the order dated 28th September, 1992 of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi.The main business of the assessee is trading in paper. Assessee has also done transactions in ball bearings. It has also claimed to have dealt in food grains during the year under appeal. For the assessment year 1989-90 for which the previous year consisted of 21 months assessee filed a return of income at Rs. 1,73,394. Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 3-2-1992 at an income of Rs. 1,19,70,030. The CIT(A) vide impugned order has allowed partial relief.2. The issue in this appeal, inter alia, is relating to loss of Rs. 40,87,235 claimed by the appellant company in respect of trading of foodgrains. Assessee claimed to have purchased foodgrains, namely, Gawar for a sum of Rs. 65,40,578 and claimed to have sold for Rs. 24,53,343 resulting in a net loss of Rs. 40,87,235. The Gawar was stated to have been purchased from five comm...
Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD349(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal arising out of an assessment made for surtax for the assessment year 1983-84. In response to statutory notice issued, the assessee-company filed return showing chargeable profit of Rs. 10,78,730. To arrive at the chargeable profit, for levy of surtax, the Surtax Officer deducted from the income-tax payable on the total income determined a sum of Rs. 1,88,929 which represented the tax deducted from the dividends declared to be distributed to the shareholders. The view of the Assessing Officer was that under Rule 2(i)(b) of the First Schedule, the amount of income-tax if any payable on the distribution of dividends should be reduced from the total income arrived at after making adjustments as provided for in Rule 1. It was the interpretation placed upon this Sub-rule (ii)(b) by the Surtax Officer and approved of by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) that is now the subject matter of appeal before us.2. For income-tax purposes, the income assessed was Rs. 1.30 crores...
Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD258(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 29th November, 1991 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar. Briefly stating the facts, assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 1990-91 on 21st December,1990 declaring income of Rs. 1,68,48,754. This return of income was processed by the Assessing Officer on 8-1-1991 after making certain adjustments and computing the income at Rs. 3,32,18,006. The intimation provided under section 143(1) was served upon the assessee on 10th January, 1991. In between the processing of the return on 8-1-1991, and service of intimation on 10-1-1991, assessee filed a revised return on 9-1-1991. This return was also processed on 16-1-1991 under section 143(1) and intimation served upon the assessee on 17-1-1991. On receipt of the first intimation under section 143(1) on 10-1-1991 assessee wrote a letter dated 14-1-1991 referring to the discussion of the assessee's representative with the Assessing Officer on 7-1-1991 and latter expressing doubts regardi...
Kiranjit Singh Vs. Madan Lal Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)557; 53(1994)DLT86; 1993(27)DRJ253
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.l4,62,000.00 with interest pendente life and future interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Though initially the suit was filed as an ordinary one, the plaintiff moved an application bearing is No. 1390/92 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for amendment of the plaint and prayed that the suit be treated as one under Order 37 of the Code. The said application was allowed and the suit has been treated as one under Order 37 of the Code. (2) After the service of the summons Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the defendant before the Joint Registrar on 25th May, 1992. He also undertook to file power of attorney along with memo of appearance shortly. (3) In terms of order dated 23rd November, 1992 passed by the Joint Registrar, summons for judgment issued against the defendant for 27th September, 1992 were duly served on the said defendant on 24th ...
Navneet Rai Vs. Narinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)883; 52(1993)DLT83; 1993(27)DRJ219
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), is directed against the order dated 19 October 1989 passed by the Rent Controller dismissing petitioner-tenant's application seeking leave to contest respondent landlady's eviction petition under section 14D of the Act, consequently passing the eviction order and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises in question, i.e. ground floor one room in the property bearing No.19/3, Prem Nagar, near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi to the respondent forthwith. (2) The respondent filed the eviction petition staling that she was the owner of the said premises; she was a widow; there were in all three rooms in the property; one room was let out to the petitioner; and two rooms were in the occupation of the respondent out of which one room was being used by the younger son of the petitioner who got married in the year 1989 and the other room was being shared by her w...
Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)48TTJ(Del)112
ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J. M. :This appeal arises out of the order dt. 29th Nov., 1991 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar. Briefly stating the facts, assessed had filed the return of income for asst. yr. 1990-91 on 21st Dec., 1990 declaring income of Rs. 1,68,48,754. This return of income was processed by the Assessing Officer on 8th Jan., 1991 after making certain adjustments and computing the income at Rs. 3,32,18,006. The intimation provided under S. 143(1) was served upon the assessed on 10th Jan., 1991. In between the processing of the return on 8th Jan., 1991 and service of intimation on 10th Jan., 1991, assessed filed a revised return on 9th Jan., 1991. This return was also processed on 16th Jan., 1991 under S. 143(1) and intimation served upon the assessed on 17th Jan., 1991. On receipt of the first intimation under S. 143(1) on 10th Jan., 1991 assessed wrote a letter dt. 14th Jan., 1991, referring to the discussion of the assesseds representative with the Assessing Officer on 7th Jan., 1...
Nuchem Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD487(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the assessee against confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1931, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Faridabad, pertaining to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Since certain issues involved in both these appeals are common, therefore for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. In assessment year 1984-85 the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) at an income of Rs. 1,29,29,120 as against the original and revised returned loss of Rs. 1,58,02,710 and Rs. 96,35,750 respectively vide order dated 12-1-1988. In the assessment various additions/ disallowances were made at the assessment stage. The assessee went in appeals against these additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and finally as a result of the Tribunal's order the following main disallowances/additions were confirmed: (i) Disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 34,03...
State Bank of India Vs. Damyanti Rani Chadha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT444; 1994RLR112
F.K. Bahri, J. (1) This second appeal has been brought against judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated January 16, 1985, by which he had dismissed the appeal of the appellant against order of the Additional Rent Controller dated August 3, 1984, by which ground of eviction covered by Clause (k) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was upheld. (2) The admitted facts of the case are that the land underneath the demised premises was given on perpetual lease by the Land & Development Office of the Union of India to Shri Maharaj Kishan vide lease deed, copy of which is Ex. AW3/ I and this was a lease for 99 years which came into effect from April 1, 1951. Smt.Damyanti Rani Chadha appellant had inherited the leasehold rights from her husband-Sh.Maharaj Kishan on the basis of the Will which has been duly probated. The premises in question were admittedly let out to the State Bank of India for establishing its commercial branch in the demised premise...
Paramvir Singh Alias Pammu Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ285
ORDER1. The petitioner, Mr. Paramvir Singh alias Pammu has challenged his detention vide detention order dated 4-2-1993 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter called 'N.S.A.') by filing this Criminal writ petition on various grounds including Ground IX that there is a long delay in consideration of the representation made by the petitioner and as such the detention is vocative of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2. As per the averments made by the petitioner in the petition, the order of detention under S. 3(2) of the N.S.A. was passed on 4-2-1993. This detention order was served upon him while in Central Jail on 5-2-1993. On 8-2-1993 father of the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of Police stating that the grounds of detention Police stating that the grounds of detention may be served on the petitioner so hat he can make an effective and purposeful representation. On 9-2-1993 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »