Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi18
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:-'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Rs.3,489 assessable under the head 'toher sources' ?. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said interest income would be allocated as income from 'toher Sources' in the Partners' hands?.'(1a) Before I set out the facts of the case and proceed to answer the questions, it is necessary to deal with a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Revenue that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.(2) Under sub-section (8) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The jurisdiction with respect to the Union territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh was conferred on the High Court of Punjab. The relevant part of sub-section (8) of section 66 reads:'For the purposes of this section, 'the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT191
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is a whole-sale dealer in food-grains, Kariana, cemet, vanaspsti, molasses and general merchandise at Maranda, District Kangra. The Punjab Rcorgaization Act, 1966 (Act No. 31 of 1966) came into force on November 1, 1966, and the Districts of Kangra, Kulu, Lahaul Spiti and Simla (hereafter referred to as the 'transferred territories'), which formed part of the State of Punjab, were merged in the Union torritory of Himachal Pradesh. The transferred territories, being part of Punjab, the provisions of the Punjab Sales-tax Act, 1948, were applicable therein and by virtue of section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, continued to operate in the transferred territories until altered by to the areas comprised in the Union Territory of Himachal Pardesh before merger of the transferred territories, the East Punjab General Sales-tax Act, 1948 ( hereafter referred to as the Himachal Act) was applicable with certain modi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi142; 5(1969)DLT82; ILR1969Delhi19
Dua, C.J. 1. This case has been placed before us pursuant to my order of reference dated 14-11-1967 which may be read as a part of the present order. The only question requiring authoritative determination is whether the amendment made in Rule 1 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Punjab High Court is still operative in the Courts of the District Judges and Subordinate Judges of 1st Class in the Union Territory of Delhi The submission eloquently pressed by Shri Sehgal on behalf of the defendant-petitioner is that under section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act No. 26 of 1966, the Delhi High Court alone has the power to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure and all rules made by the Punjab High Court with respect to such practice and procedure in relation to the subordinate Courts at Delhi must cease to have effect as soon as the Punjab High Court ceased to have jurisdiction over such subordinate Courts. 2. In support of his submission. Shri Sehgal has c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi178
ORDER1. The petitioner, a resident of Bhiwani, Hissar District in the State of Haryana, has sought the following reliefs:1. That Section 4 and sub-section (b) (ii) of Section 7 and Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 be declared as ultra virus and void. 2. That a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued to implement the Shah Commission Report in toto and that Chandigarh Capital Project as also Lalroo, Darabassi, Pathankot and areas of Gazilka and Malaut be declared as included in the territories of the Haryana State; and 3. That a suitable writ be issued ousting the authority of the Central Government from the conrol and management of the Bhakra Nangal complex and to vest the same in the State of Haryana in order that people of Haryana may have full share in the water of Satluj, Beas and Ravi rivers. 2. The Union of India and the State of Punjab, but not the State of Haryana, have filed returns constesting this petition.3. The two questions argued befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi123
Pritam Singh Safeer, J1. A very significant question arises on determination whereof would rest the ultimate fate of this Letters Patent appeal. The question is whether any equity calling for adequate relief would arise in favor of a citizen on the basis of representation made on behalf of the State (in this case the respondents to the appeal) which may not be based upon any legal sanction behind it.2. The Letters Patent appeal has been substantially urged on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Air 1968 Sc 718, union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies. The appellants' counsel was allowed to argue as if he was once again urging the acceptance of his civil writ petition No. 131 of 1967. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Company, English Wine Contractor, the Mail, Simla through its partner named Shri Hem Raj. The respondents were the Lieutenant Governor, Administrator, of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi45a
Khanna, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to the Full bench in pursuance of an order made by Om Parkash and Anmsari, JJ.:-'(1) Whether the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board are persons serving in connection with the affair of the Punjab State who could be allocated to the successor States under Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. (2) Whether the employees of the said Board constituted its assets or liabilities which were liable to apportioned between the successor States under sub-sections (3) and (4) of S. 67 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act.' 2. The questions have arisen in a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Mohd. Yaqub petitioner on January 3, 1969. The six respondents in the petition are (1) Union of India, (2) Himachal Pradesh Administration, (3) Secretary, Department of Multipurpose Projects and Power, Government of Himachal Pradesh (4) D. C. Tandon, (5) Ramjilal Kaistha and (6) Duni Chand Bhandari. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi629
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) Bishan Sarup Gupta by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the revised seniority list of Income-tax Officers, Class I, issued by the Ministry of Finance by letter dated July, 15, 1968. Prayer has also been made to quash the principles which were adopted in revising the seniority list. The principles are given in letter dated July 15, 1968 accompanying the revised list. Another letter sought to be quashed by the petitioner is dated July 5, 1969 addressed by the Ministry of Finance. Prayer has further been made by the petitioner for refixing his seniority in Income-tax Service, Class I, so as to show him above the direct recruits appointed as a result of the competitive examination held in 1959. A number of other consequential and ancillary reliefs have also been asked for by the petitioner.(2) The first six respondents are (1) the Union of India, (2)the Ministry of Finance (Department o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT161
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) The reference made by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, under section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 disclosed that the Punjab State was the party to the said reference. It was for that reason that I had passed the order dated the 22nd October, 1970. (2) Mr, D. P. Sud has referred me to the provisions of Section 92 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and then to clauses (i), (m) and (n)of Section 2 thereof. Clause (m) is:- '(M)'Successor State',in relation to the existing State of Punjab, means the State of Punjab or Haryana, and includes also the Union in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the transferred territory.'(3) The transferred territory is defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the aforementioned Act. Clause (m) means that in respect of the transferred territory the Union i. e Union of India will be the successor State, Himachal iradesh as such will not be the successor State. The transferred territory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT172
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner, Oberoi Clarks Hotel, Simla, is aggrieved by the imposition of a fee of Rs. 10.000.00 in addition to the assessed fee on the liquor licenses L. 3 L 4 and L. 5 held by them for the period 1st April, 1968 by virtue of an amendment made by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Financial Commissioner under section 9 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (No. I of 1914) and in exercise of the powers conferred by section 59 of the said Act the amendment taking retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. (2) The short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Excise and taxation Commissioner could impose the said extra levy during the currency of the financial year 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969 by an amendment dated 30th October, 1968 but have retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. (3) It was stated by Shri C. L Kapila, leaned counsel for the respondents, that the Financial Commissioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi521; [1972]84ITR567(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The Income-tax Tribunal Delhi Bench) (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this Court, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):- '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,349.00 paid by the assessed to M/s. Ranbir Bros., Kanpur was a business expenditure of revenue nature 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed's business of printing and publishing books was a newly established industrial undertaking entitled to the exemption from tax under section 15C of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'(2) The facts relevant to the first question may briefly be stated : M/s. Naya Sahitya, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) is a registered firm carrying on business of publishing books. The assessed wanted to obtain recognition of the Himachal Pradesh Education Department for some of the textbooks published ...
Tag this Judgment!