Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]69ITR65(Delhi)
In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter reference to as &quto;the Act&quto;), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (Delhi Bench) &quto;C&quto;, has submitted to this court, for its opinion, the following question of law :&quto;Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 18,000 received by the assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month, under the terms of the agreement, dated March 12, 1951, is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessed.&quto;Shri Lal Chand Jain is the assessed in this case. Till March 12, 1951, he carried on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis under the trade makes and trade names of &quto;Pan Ka Ekka, Seth Biri No. 311&quto; and &quto;Divi&quto;. Those trade marks were his exclusive properties. On March 12, 1951, by means of a registered deed of agreement, he transferred his interest in the business in question along with the goodwill as well as the stock-in-trade to one Seth ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1970CriLJ221; ILR1968Delhi353
S.N. Shanker, J.(1) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, recommending an enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused.(2) Brief facts are that the accused is a sweetmeat seller. On 1/9/1965, Shri Bakhat Singh Sethi, Food Inspector. appointed by the Central Government under section 9 of the 16 Adulteration Act (hereafter called 'the Act') visited his shop and found that he was selling coloured Laddoos. Shri Bakhat Singh Sethi purchased 1500 grams of these Laddoos by way of sample and paid him Rs. 9 as their price vide receipt Exhibit P.A. The sample was divided into three parts and was put into three separate buttles. One buttle was given to the accused, one was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by the Food Inspector. On 10/9/1965, the Public Analyst analysed the sample and gave the following report :- 'BUTYRO Refractometer reading at 40; C of the fat extracted from sweets-50.0, Baudouin test of the extracted fat-positive, Rieche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi261
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Simla whereby he dismissed a suit of the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 347-56 paise. The allegations of the petitioner, in the plaint, were as under:-2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm known as Messrs. Dewan Chand Atma Ram, 57, the Mall, Simla. The firm is dealing in wool and other goods. A consignment, containing one case of wool was sent to the petitoiner by Bengal National Textile Mills Limited, Calcutta from howrah, vide R.R. No.052528 dated 2-11-1964. Due to the misconduct and negligence of the Railway Adminsitration, the above consignement reached Simla in a damaged condition. The petitioner had taken open delivery of the godos and it was found that 29 packets of Raj Hans knitting wool were short. The shortage certificate was obtained from the Chief Goods Clerk on 15-12-1964. The certificate was sent to the Chief Commercial Superintendent (claims Branch), Kashme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi477; [1972]85ITR261(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) An interesting question of law has been raised in a reference made by the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 26-11-1965 for the assessment year 1952- 53 and reads :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thepayment of Rs. 22,951.00 to the Vanaspati Manufacturers Association of India is a revenue deduction against the income of the previous year.?'(2) The petitioner which will hereafter be described as the assessed or assessed company, runs a number of mills including a mill for the manufacture of Vanaspati Oil. During the previous year ending 30th June 1951 the Vanaspati Manufacturers Association, Bombay of which the assessed is a member, debited the assessed with a total sum of Rs. 22851.00. This amount represented the assessed's share of propaganda expenses incurred by the Association. The letter sent by the Association intimatical to the assessed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 10(1974)DLT46
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioner claims itself to be a registered pertnership carrying on business in the Union Territoly of Delhi In 1965 applied for the issue of a license for manufacture of cartridges used as amunition in shot guns A license bear' Ing No. 2/IX/1965 was issued to the petitioner for the manufacture of 5000 gun cartridges at a time. This license was in Form Ix given in the . Arms Act, 1959 lt was renewed from time to time up to December 31,1971. ltis alleged by the petitioner that acting upon this license granted to it investment was made for purchasing necessary machinery and installing a factory in Bhogal, New Delhi. The production of cartridges was undertaken by the petitioner right up to February, 1972. During all this period the concerned authorities regularly inspected (he (Arrexure) and September 2, 1972 (Annexure and also making a declaration that the license issued to the petitioner originally in 1965 was a valid license to enable them to continue the manu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 11(1975)DLT124
H. L. Anand, J.(1) By this secoud appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called ' the Act'), the appellant, an unsuccessful tenant, challenges anorder of the Rent Control Tribunal by which it has affirmed in appeal an order made by the Additional Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises in dispute were bona fide required by the respondent/landlady for her residence and that the respondent/ landlady had no other suitable accommodation available for the purpose. (2) The appellant has been in occupation of the premises in dispute being a portion of the ground floor of the property, consisting of two rooms, a verandah, kitchen, bath, court-yard and a common laterine. The landlady has been in occupation of a part of the first floor of the property and while it is not disputed that the premises in the occupation of the landlady on the first floor is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi96
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi confirming that of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The premises in dispute were let out to the appellant by late Shrimati Tara H. K. Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . Subsequently on the death of the landlady the respondent herein, one of the heirs of the landlady, filed an application for the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent legally recoverable from him notwithstanding the expiry of the period of two months from the service of notice of demand in that behalf. The application was resisted by the appellant inter alia, on the ground that the application was not maintainable in the absence of other heirs of the landlady; that no notice of demand had been served on the appellant; that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi270
ORDER1. The Plaintiff through this suit has prayed for a decree against the defendants to the effect that by the non-acceptance of the advance sample by the defendants the contract of supply dated 4th June, 1968, had come to an end. The plaintiff further seeks a declaration that thn breach of the contract was on the part of the defendants and that defendants are not entitled to recover an amount from them. A further declaration is sought to the effect that it bp heidt that there is no valid contract between the parties as the offer made by the plaintiff was not specially accepted by the defendants and defendants be restirined form effecting any recovery from the Plaintiff.2. Contract dated 4th June, 1968, for supply of paper water-proof Bitumen in (size) of 36' to the specification No. IND-ME/577(a) was included between the parties. By letter dated 16th June,1968, the chief Inspector of Military Explosives substituted the above said specification by specification NO. JSS-1212. On plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi233
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The tenant is the petitioner win) is aggrieved by the order dated 8-1-1973 of the Assistant Coininissioncr with the powers of Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Ocarance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act;, granting permission to take proceedings to evict him from the business premises, bearing No. 1066, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi.(2) Having found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties the Competent Authority went further to find that the alleged sub-letting was true-which is a question to be decided by the Rent Controller. He granted permission to the landlord/ respondcnt(s) to evict him from the said premises but without giving any specific finding as required by section 19(4) of the Act on the tenant's ability to find alternative accommodation within his means if he were evicted, an aspect to which I have made more detailed reference in Kirath Chand v. P. R. Varshneya and others I.L.R.1971 Delhi 405 0)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi628
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' which came up before us on a reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court, raises certain questions with regard to the extent to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would govern the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi before the latter Act was extended to the said territory and the further question whether even after its extension, its operation is excluded by the provisions of the Act in relation to tenancies, whether contractual or statutory, which are covered by the Act.(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the appeal may be briefly stated. The premises in dispute were let out with effect from May 1, 1954 by a rent note, Ex. AW3/1, of May 19, 1954 by the first respondent the owner thereof, to the appellant. According to the rent note 'the tenancy was for a period of 'less than one year,' there ...
Tag this Judgment!