Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 10 of about 140 results (0.021 seconds)Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Jyotsana Holding (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)49ITD576(Delhi)
1. The dispute, in this appeal, of the revenue, which is directed against the order dated 8-12-1989 of CIT(A) I, New Delhi is relating to cancellation of penalty of Rs. 6,48,045 imposed under Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Briefly stating the facts the assessee-company filed its return of income for assessment year 1987-88 on 31st of July, 1987 declaring income of Rs. 5,89,14,251. However, self-assessment tax had not been paid before filing of the return. The assessee paid the self-assessment tax on the basis of the return only on 12-9-1987. Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee as to why penalty under Section 140A(3) may not be imposed for non-payment of tax on the basis of the return as per Section 140A. (1) There is no default in terms of Section 140A(1) & (3) because the assessee did not have the requisite funds which were remitted to India on 11-9-1987. (2) The levy of penalty is not automatic and an opportunity of being heard should be granted. (3...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Kapoor Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT831
K.S. Bhat, J. (1) The appeal is by the plaintiff. He sought a declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction against the defendant against denial of special allowance that was being paid to him by the defendant. (2) The plaintiff was being paid a special allowance and thereforee he was referred as a 'Daftri'. There was a disciplinary enquiry against him resulting in the punishment whereby the special allowance was withdrawn. This is under challenge. The defendant inter alias questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. (3) This preliminary objection was up held by the Trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court. Trial Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the suit filed by the appellant is maintainable and whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (4) The Trial Court held that Civil Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the management imposing the pen...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Roneo Vickers India Limited Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)713; 53(1994)DLT785; (1994)IILLJ1078Del
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) These two writ petitions have been filed by the Management and the Workman Shri N.L. Khosla to impugn the Award dated August 29, 1990, of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Officer, Labour Court Viii in a reference No. F.26 (92)/68-Lab. dated 25/26.3.1968, made by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of the powers purported to have been conferred by Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). (2) Shri N.L. Khosla was employed by the erstwhile 'Roneo Limited' as a Salesman in the year 1962 in New Delhi office on probation on a salary of Rs. 200.00 per month. Shri Khosla was also entitled to commission over and above the salary, which he received. The letter of appointment dated August 16,1962, was issued to the petitioner and the operative part reads as follows: 'RONEOLIMITED H.O.for India P13 Mission Row Extn Calcutta. Incorporated in England Ref. 44 16th August, 1962. Mr.N.L. Khosla, 11/19 East Patel Nagar, Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh Aggarwal Vs. Virender Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)733; 53(1994)DLT645; 1994RLR183
K.S. Bhat, J. (1) The landlord is the petitioner. He sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here inafter called the Act) on the ground that he requires additional accommodation and thereforee his requirement is a bonafide requirement. (2) As usual the respondent tenant opposed the prayer. The Trial Court has accepted the contention of the respondent resulting in the dismissal of the eviction petition. Hence this revision petition. (3) A few facts are to be noted here. The landlord is also residing in the same building and according to the landlord he is inoccupation of three rooms only. The finding is that his family consists of himself, his wife, 2 major sons, out of whom one was married already and a grown updaughter. The tenanted premises consist of two rooms and there are six members in the family of the tenant. Interview of the growth of the children and the need to provide proper accommodation to all the members the landlord soug...
Tag this Judgment!Amrik Singh Sabharwal Vs. Kanta Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1994)107PLR60
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Heard on the question of admission. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Order dated 13th October, 1993 passed by the Addl. District Judge by which an appeal against the Order of the Trial Court rejecting plain tiff/petitioner's prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner was found to be in possession, even if unauthorised, he was entitled to be protected against any forcible dispossession resorted to otherwise than in due course of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to Section 30 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and Section 343 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 while submitting that the petitioner's possession could not have been removed without serving a notice on him as contemplated by the two provisions referred to by him.2. The submission seems to have some force. The authorities ...
Tag this Judgment!H and R Johnson (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(54)LC248Tri(Delhi)
1. The above Appeal arises out of the Order dt. 17.6.1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Indore. The case relates to alleged excess and shortage of goods i.e. wall tiles and floor tiles detected by the Central Excise Officers of Ujjain during their visit to the factory of the Appellants between 8th and 14th September, 1990.2. The Appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic products viz. Glazed Wall Tiles and Floor Tiles (Paving), both falling under Heading 6906.10 of the CETA 1985. The Central Excise Officers of Ujjain Division visited the factory of the Appellants situated at Dewas during the period from 8th to 14th September, 1990 and conducted stock verification of the goods in the Bonded Stock Room. The capacity of the Bonded Store Room was approximately 75,000 cartons while about 2 lakhs cartons were stored therein. The excess and shortage of the goods was verified and found to be as under:I. Excess Stock No. of Cartons Value Duty-----------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT737TriDel
1. The sole issue for determination in all these appeals is the eligibility for modvat credit of caustic soda, hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitrogen gas and oxygen gas used as inputs in the manufacture of monochrome picture tubes. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of picture tubes for black and white TV sets classified under Chapter 85 CETA, 1985. The inputs and outputs are covered by the modvat scheme and were duly declared to the Department.Show cause notices were issued seeking to deny modvat credit on the ground that the disputed items were in the nature of apparatus/appliances and, therefore, not covered by the definition of inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector confirmed the denial of modvat credit on the items in question and the lower appellate authority upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority.________________________________________________________________________Appeal No. Period in dispute Amount...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Sharma and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)708; 1994(29)DRJ399
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Shri C.L.Sharma, one of the Assistants and Shri Vikramjit,one of the Junior Readers, on the establishment of this Court, have sought an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade their posts to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 on parity with the pay-scale already granted to Senior Stenographers. They have averred in the petition that under the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the posts in categories (9) Assistant, (10) Senior Translator and Proof Reader, (11) Junior Reader, (13) P.A. to Registrar and (14) Senior Stenographer in the Schedule to the Delhi High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowances and Pension) Rules and also under the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971, are equal status posts and according to Rule 8(c) of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Gupta Vs. Surinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT767; 1994RLR217
K.S. Bhat, J. (1) The landlady is the petitioner before me. She sought eviction of the respondent under Section 14(l)(e) and 14(l)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is not necessary to refer to the grounds urged under Section 14(l)(a) because the learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined the case to the claim under Sub-clause (e) on the ground that the respondent had paid the rents subsequently. (2) The parties are residing in the same building. There is no dispute that the landlady has 3 sons, 3 daughters-in-law and 12 grand children. This figure is with reference to the date of the trial. Material on record also discloses that the grand children were aged between 2 to 15 years at that time. The landlady has three married daughters. (3) It is also necessary to note that the property originally belonged to the husband of the petitioner and he left a Will under which a life estate was given to the landlady and the remainder was given to the sons and thereforee, all the sons h...
Tag this Judgment!J.S.R. Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Del)363
ORDERN.S. CHOPRA, A.M. :These three appeals of the assessed against orders dt. 16th Oct., 1990 are consolidated and disposed of by this common order, there being some common grounds of appeals.2. The first common ground in all the three appeals is against disallowance of annual discount @ 3% given by the assessed to M/s Paris Beauty Sales Co. (PBSC for short) under s. 40A(2)(a) or IT Act. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment for asst. yr. 1986-87 and the same was disallowed for asst. yr. 1985-86 after reopening the assessment. This was followed in asst. yr. 1988-89. The relevant facts are that assessed is a partnership constituted of four partners of the same family, namely, Shri Narain Dass Wadhwa, Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Shri Leela Krishan, who is the brother of Shri Narain Dass Wadhwa, Shri Jagdish Chander Wadhwa son of Shri Narain Dass and Shri Ramesh Chander Wadhwa son of Shri Narain Dass; all have equal share of profits/losses. This firm came ...
Tag this Judgment!