Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi185; (1969)IILLJ524Del
ORDER(1) Avtar Singh petitioner by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the order dated 17th June 1959 of Labour Court Delhi, respondent No. 1, by which Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was held entitled to recover Rs. 2,850 from the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 as also their firm Inder Singh, Avtar Singh.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 were partners in the business of coal and brickkiln under the name style of Inder Singh Avtarsingh with the offices at Delhi and Jharia. Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was employed as a head clerk in that firm and worked as such for 16 years from 1st January 1941 to 15th December 1956. It appears that during the later part of 1956 the two partners of above-mentioned firm fell out and on 20th October 1956 they; applied for separate qutoas for themselves. In March 1957 the petitioner brought a suit for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]68ITR770(Delhi)
This is reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as &quto;the act&quto;). The question of law, referred for the opinion of this court, is :&quto;Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Government of India, were received by the assessed in the taxable territories ?&quto;This reference was made on December 10, 1952, and it was numbered as Civil Reference Case No. 3 of 1953, in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla. The said reference came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of G. D. Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ. on the March 24, 1955. After hearing the counsel for the parties, their Lordships opined that it would be necessary to call for a supplementary statement under section 66(4) of the Act, as the Tribunal had nto given any finding as to whether the cheques, with which we are concerned in this case, were sent to the assessed by post ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi75
Kapur, J.1. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1951. In the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, i.e. the two years preceding the year of assessment, the assessed took certain contracts regarding the sale of liquor in his individual name and sustained losses of Rs.48,619/- and Rs.4,892/- respectively. During the assessment year 1951-52 with which we are concerned, the assessed with ten toher persons, took antoher liquor contract and the business was carried on by the partnership under the name and style of Dulat Ram, Hans Raj and Company. This partnership was registered for the assessment year 1951-52 and, thereforee, the question has to be answered in the light of this fact. The assessed's share in the said registered firm was 11% pies in a rupee and during the year, his share of profits came to Rs. 20,414/-. The assessed claimed that he was entitled to carry forward and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1967]66ITR341(Delhi)
KAPUR J. - The dispute relates to the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1951. In the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, i.e., the two years preceding the year of assessment, the assessed took certain contracts regarding the sale of liquor in his individual name and sustained losses of Rs. 48,619 and Rs. 4,892, respectively. During the assessment year 1951-52, with which we are concerned, the assessed with ten toher persons, took antoher liquor contract and the business was carried on by the partnership under the name and style of Dulat Ram, Hans Raj and Co. This partnership was registered for the assessment year 1951-52, and, thereforee, the question has to be answered in the light of this fact. The assesseds share in the said registered firm was 11 1/4 pies in a rupee and during that year, his share of profits came to Rs. 20,414. The assessed claimed that he was entitled to carry forward and set ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi1
ORDER(1) This is a reference under Section 57(10(b) of the Indian stamp Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The letter of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Delhi, referring this case to this Court reads as follows:- 'The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Respectfully Showeth 1 (a) That on 11-9-1964 Messrs. Hamdard Dawakhana (wakf), Delhi, executed an agreement in favor of the Institute of Medicines and Medical Research, Delhi. A copy of the agreement is submitted herewith as annexure A. (b) That on the same date Messrs. Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi executed antoher agreement in favor of Messrs. Hamdard National Foundations (India), Delhi. A copy of this agreement is submitted herewith as annexure B. 2 That on 15-9-1964 buth the agreements were presented for registration before the Sub Registrar (I), Delhi. They had buth been executed by the respondent on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2-00 each. 3 That the Sub-Registrar impounded, the two documents und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi283
1. This case has been placed before us under section 21 of the Chartered Accountant Act No. xxxviii of 1949 with a recommendation of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter called the Council) that Shri Shadi Lal Batra, F.C.A, Chartered Accountant, has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his professional duties. 2. It appears that in July, 1959, the Council received a complaint dated 30-6-1959 from the Sterling Electrical Trader Corporation Private Limited through its Director Shri B. D. Dhingra against M/s. Batra & Company Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. After several unsuccessful attempts by the Council to have a reply from Shri S. L, Batra to the allegations in the complaint the Council considered the matter in September, 1960 and decided to refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee for enquiry; because the Council was prima facie of opinion that Shri Batraa was guilty of professional or toher misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT93
Tatachari, J.(1) This Appeal, F. A. O. 73-D 1962, originally came up forbearing before A N. Grover, J. The learned Judge considered that the appeal should be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench, and by his order dated 24th March, 1964, directed the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders regarding the constitution of a Bench turn deciding the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal has been posted before us for hearing.(2) This Appeal has been filed by M/s Salween Timber and Construction Co. and antoher against the judgment of Shri N. C. Gupta, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 12th April, 1962, in suit No. 44 of 1961, whereby he set aside the award given by the Umpire on 20th November, 1960, by which the Umpire allowed a claim of the appellants here into the extent of Rs. 3,10,000.00 and also awarded a sum of Rs. 6,500.00 towards costs. The Umpire, by the said award, rejected the counter-claim of the respondent Union of India.(3) The facts which have given rise t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi125
Dua, J.(1). The Premier Insurance Company Ltd., imp leaded as defendant No. 5 in the Court below in pursuance of a ntoice issued under Section 96(2) of the Mtoor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act), has preferred this regular first appeal from the judgment and decree of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 9-12-1957 granting to the four plaintiff-respondents a decree for Rs.20,000/- against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Out of the ttoal decretal amount, plaintiff No. 1. widow of the deceased Ajit Singh, was entitled to get Rs.5,000/-, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, daughters of the deceased, Rs. 3,000/- each and plaintiff No. 4, minor son of the deceased, Rs.9,000/-. Defendant No. 1, Nichhattar Singh is the mtoor driver of the vehicle which was involved in the occurrence causing Ajit Singh's death and defendant No. 2, Nahar Singh, its owner, whereas defendant No.4, as already observed, is the Insurance Company. (2) On 17-8-1954 at about 7-30 P.M., Ajit Singh, deceased was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]68ITR79(Delhi)
K. S. HEGDE C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question of law referred is :&quto;Whether the aforesaid sum of Rs. 33,150 paid by way of premium under the aforesaid policy is deductible under the provisions of section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?&quto;The material facts of the case are these : Messrs. Meattles Limited, Delhi, is a private limited company. Shri. B. D. Meattle, the governing director of the company, owns practically all the shares. In reality, it is a one-man concern, as held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The board of directors of the company, by means of a resolution dated October 29, 1954, resolved as under :&quto;The Board think it expedient and in the best interest of the company that Shri. B. D. Meattle, the governing director of the company, be insured as provided in article 44 of the memorandum of association of the company, buth for life and accid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi43
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The facts of this case have been set out in great detail by the learned Single Judge and the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal admit of statement in a very moderate compass. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1946-47, the relevant accounting period being 16-10-1944 to 4-11-1945. Firm Jankidass Banarsidass was started in 1940 with btoh the appellants as the partners, Appellant Banarsidass had -/11/- share while his brtoher Phool Chand had -/4/- share in profits of the firm. The remaining -/1/- was being set apart for charity. The firm was registered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 for the relevant assessment year.The assessment of the firm was completed for the said year on 5th August, 1946 and income assessed at Rs. 6,644. The income of the partners was then assessed separately in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Banarsidass's...
Tag this Judgment!