Delhi Court December 2000 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR171(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN732(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two reference applications involve identical issues and are, thereforee, disposed of by this common judgment.2. On being moved by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax assessments made on the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of the income for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 as successor of Bharat General Re-insurance Ltd., were bad in law ?'3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed is the successor of Bharat General Re-insurance Limited, New Delhi. The Central Government framed a scheme for merger of certain Indian insurance companies in the assessee-company for more efficient carrying on of the general ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Kaul
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR667(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. On being moved by the Revenue for reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessed is entitled to claim exemption for the pension of Rs. 1,21,819 received by him from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed, a retired Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organisation (in short 'WHO'), at the relevant point of time, i.e., the assessment year 1976-77, was in receipt of pension. The assessed claimed before the Income-tax Officer exemption in respect of the pension amount received from the WHO and referred to a decision of the Tribunal in thecase of Dr. P.L. Narula...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vimal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT837TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Arguing for the Revenue Shri M.P. Singh, JDR submitted that the dispute is in respect of classification of cast iron castings. They are appropriately classifiable under heading No. 73.25 in view of the rulings given by the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674. He said that the Assistant Collector did not follow the circulars issued by the Department in the context that judicial pronouncements over-ride circulars. He said that in the instant case, the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the Circular issued by the Board and the decision of the Tribunal is binding. In support of this contention that judicial pronouncements over-ride the circulars issued by the Department, he heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (119) ELT 513. He said that Tribunal has categorically held in the case of Shivaji Works (supra) that item in question is classifiable under sub-heading 7...
National Engg. Indus. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT51TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,86,844.00.2. A show cause notice was issued to the applicants for denying the benefit in respect of components and spares as capital goods. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The revenue filed an appeal and the Commissioner, vide impugned order held that as the parts have specifically been excluded from the scope of capital goods against serial number 2 and 3 of the Table to the notification, they cannot be brought in through any backdoor entry.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of this applicants, submits that the Commissioner, while deciding the issue ignored the circular issued by the Board dated 2-12-96. He submits that by this circular, the Board has clarified that all parts/components/accessories, which are to be used with capital goods of Clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of Rule 57Q and classifiable under any chapter heading, are eligible for availment of Modvat ...
Shri Jitender Singh Bindra and Another Vs. Ms. Kewal Bindra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)469; 90(2001)DLT120
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellants in this appeal were the defendants in Suit No. 3686 of 1991, which was filed by the respondents herein, as plaintiffs. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the daughters and respondent no.4 is the widow of the Late Shri S.S.Bindra (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased', for short). The appellants are the two sons of the deceased. The deceased was the owner of house no. 10-E/A, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and he died intestate on 4th September, 1985. This is a double storeyed house built upon land measuring 200 sq. yards with the following constructions:- i. Ground floor - Four rooms, two kitchens, two combined latrines and bath, front open verandah and back open verandah. ii. First floor - Three rooms, two covered verandahs, one kitchen, one latrine, bath room, one store and balcony. iii. Second floor - two rooms, store, latrine, bath room. 2. The appellants, both of whom are married, are living in the Suit premises Along with their families. Their mot...
Balbir Kumar Datta Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)313; 89(2001)DLT361; I(2001)DMC326; 2001(57)DRJ624
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the unfortunate father of AAAarti, who had committed suicide on 28.5.1999 about one year after the marriage. The petitioner -father of the deceased- is aggrieved by the order passed by Shri R.S.Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent No.3 (Rakesh Bali) on 6.8.1999 and granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.4 to 9 on 31.7.1999 & 4.8.1999 in a case where there are clear and specific allegations that the unfortunate incident of AAarti's death had taken place because of harassment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry. According to the petitioner, the court was not justified in granting bail to Rakesh Bali and anticipatory bail to the other accused persons, pAarticularly, when there was so much material on record regarding the harassment of the deceased on account of demand of dowry. The petitioner has prayed that the ba...
S.J.S. Chhatwal Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)912; 92(2001)DLT157; 2001(58)DRJ779
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This Petition has been filed by the petitioner against cancellation of his allotment of the Government accommodation and charging damage rate of rent for a period of overstay from 1.11.1996 to 4.12.1996 amounting to Rs. 17,350/- at the rate of Rs. 15,336/- per month, after the petitioner became Chairman of the UPSC and on completion of his tenure of five years.3. It has been contended by Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Government's own policy, which is reflected in the letter dated 12.2.1992 (Annexure P-2 at page 17 of the paper-book), the petitioner being a former IFS Officer, who later joined UPSC as Member had not availed the benefit of full retention of any Government accommodation on Superannuation from Government and, thereforee, like a regular Government officer on his demitting the office of acting Chairman of the UPSC he ought to have been allowed four months stay on retirement. He has further contended tha...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motorlite Mfg. Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR713(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN210(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. All these three reference applications involve identical questions which have been referred in terms of the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('in short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the assessment years 1962-63,1964-65 and 1965-66 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,194, Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 62,000 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1962-63, 1964-65 and 1965-66 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that no penalty is exigible even by taking recourse to the Explanationn to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows :The assessed was originally a partnership evidenced by an in...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Freeseking Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN803(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.On being moved by the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, New Delhi:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to development rebate at higher rate of 25 per cent in respect of machinery used in the manufacturing of steel castings and forgings even if it was an intermediary stage in the industry ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under section 80-I is admissible in respect of profits attributable to the manufacturing of articles even where such manufacturing process as listed in the Sixth Schedule, is an intermediary stage in the industry ?'2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessed a private...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Freeseking Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)357; [2001]250ITR123(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to development rebate at higher rate of 25 per cent, in respect of machinery used in the manufacturing of steel castings and forgings even if it was an intermediary stage in the industry ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80-I is admissible in respect of profits attributable to the manufacturing of articles even where such manufacturing process as listed in the Sixth Schedule, is an intermediary stage in the industry ?'2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :for the asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »