Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Priyanka Overseas Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by assesses against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in regard to interest levied under Sections 234B and 234C.2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee deposited tax of Rs. 53,40,334 arrived at an income of Rs. 84,76,720 as per law existing on 6th Nov., 1989. The assessee claimed cash assistance received against the export as capital receipt, in view of the decision in the case of Gaddore Tools of the Tribunal, Delhi (SB) and Aero leather (P) Ltd. v.Union of India (1992) 194 ITR 7 (Del). Subsequently, the law was amended with retrospective effect by the Finance Act, 1990 and as such the receipts became taxable. Accordingly, the income was enhanced by the AO and interest under Sections 234B and 234C was charged. The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee that there was a bona fide intention of the assessee, as the Special Bench decision was available and accordingly the assessee was of the view that he was not liable to pay tax on ...

M/S. Allied International Products Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)407; [2001]104CompCas481(Delhi); 89(2001)DLT414

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short AAIFR) dated 28th May, 1999 whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR) dated 30th November, 1998. By the impugned orders the Authorities under the Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short SICA) directed that the sick company, namely, M/s.Allied International Products Limited (for short AIPL) be wound up under section 20(1) of the SICA.2. To give a brief background, AIPL was promoted in the year 1962 for setting up a plant for manufacture of industrial fasteners, components and sub-assemblies for automobiles and aircrafts including nuts, bolts, screws, brickets, couplings etc. The cost of the project was originally estimated at Rs.110 lacs which was to be financed by eq...

Madan Lal JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)430; 89(2001)DLT491

ORDERARUN KUMAR, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a displaced person who migrated to India on partition of the country. After coming to Delhi he unauthorisedly occupied government land on Mirdard Road, Minto Road, New Delhi. Unauthorised occupation which started with a small piece of land was admittedly gradually extended to cover an area of 831 sq. yds. The petitioner submits that he was doing business in fire wood and coal on the said piece of land. According to the case of the petitioner as per the Gadgil Assurance he is entitled to allotment of 200 sq.yds. of land at an alternate site for purposes of his business. The petitioner was sought to be evicted from the land in his possession because according to the respondents he is not covered within the Gadgil Assurance and, thereforee, is not entitled to any alternative piece of land. An order was passed in this behalf by the Estate Officer under the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The petitioner has ch...

Bhupendra Singh Vs. University of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)293; 89(2001)DLT661; 2001(57)DRJ423

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, inter alias challenges the appointment or nomination of the members of the governing body of Dayal Singh College by the Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University w.e.f. January 14, 2000. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- 2. The erstwhile Vice-Chancellor on January 18, 2000 nominated/renominated the following persons as the members of the Governing Body of Dayal Singh College w.e.f. January 14, 2000:- 1. Prof. P.B. Mangla (Chairman) Nominated Lib. & Information Science. 2. Prof. T.N.Bali Re-nominated (to continue) 3. Prof. S.V. Goswami Re-nominated (to continue) 4. Prof. B.S. Garg Nominated (Deptt. of Chemistry) 5. Prof. V.P.Singh (Sr.Advocate) Nominated (in place of Prof. M.M.Kapoor) 6. Prof. R.K. Agnihotri Nominated Deptt. of Linguistics (in place of Prof.S.Chakravorty) 7. Prof. A.K. Sen. Re-nominated (to continue) 8. Prof. I.P.S.Monga Nominated. (in place of Dr. Deep...

E.C.E. Industries Ltd. Vs. E.C.E. House and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)599

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The order passed on 19.7.2000 by learned Single Judge in IA.2309 of 2000 in suit No.283 of 1994 is under challenge in this appeal by defendant/appellant No.1. The plaintiff/respondent has also filed cross objections. 2. By the impugned order, the defendant/appellant was directed to maintain status quo with respect to the space as shown as EFGH in plan annexure-P1 attached to the application and was further restrained from creating third party interest in respect to space ABCD. 3. The defendant/appellant has challenged the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that learned Single Judge acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in proceeding to pass an order with respect to that part of the property, which is not the subject matter of the suit. Being beyond the scope of the suit no order of restraint ought to have been put on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also questioned the legality and validity of the impugned ord...

Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Shri Sunil Puri and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)604; 90(2001)DLT769

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed on 25.7.2000 by Shri B.S. Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Delhi disposing of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.'). While allowing the said application the trial Court proceeded to dispose of the entire suit and pass a decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/ appellant allowing two months time to the defendant/appellant to hand over physical and vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff along with a decree for arrears of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrears.2. Facts in brief are that a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 8.9.1997 inter alias alleging that the entire first and second floor portion besides garage on the ground floor and common use of passage for the necessary faciliti...

Priyanka Overseas Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD353(Delhi)

ORDERGupta, J.M. This is an appeal by assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the action of the assessing officer in regard to interest levied under sections 234B and 234C.2. Brief facts of the case are that assessed deposited tax of Rs. 53,40,334 arrived at an income of Rs. 84,76,720 as per law existing on 6-11-1989. The assessed claimed cash assistance received against the export as capital receipt, in view of the decision in the case of Gaddore Tools of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (SB) and Aero Leather (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) 194 ITR 71 . Subsequently, the law was amended with retrospective effect by the Finance Act, 1990 and as such the receipts became taxable. Accordingly, the income was enhanced by the assessing officer and interest under sections 234B and 234C was charged. The assessing officer did not accept the Explanationn of the assessed that there was a bona fide intention of the assessee, as the Special Bench decision was avai...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brake Linings Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR803(Delhi); [2002]167TAXMAN213(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction by this court, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1 lakh incurred by the assessed for technical know-how was attributable to particular capital assets and was, thereforee, to be added to the capital asset such for the purpose of depreciation ?'2. The basic issue related to the question as to whether technical know-how for which rupees one lakh was paid was revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the assessed, held that it was a capital expenditure, and, thereforee, the claim as revenue expenditure had been rightly disallowed. While holding so, the Tribunal held that the sum so disallowed as capital expendit...

Association of State Road Transport Undertakings Vs. Deputy Director o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD607(Delhi)

ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.These are four appeals by assessed against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19-12-1996 and 31-12-1997 relating to assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The issue involved in these appeals are denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further objected that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the income of the assessed was liable to the computed under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The case was fixed for hearing on 27-7-2000. On that date of hearing, the assessed filed a copy of written submissions. At that point of time, the learned Departmental Representative stated that he wants to study the written submissions, thereforee, the case was adjourned to 25-9-2000 and it was finally fixed for hearing on 1-11-2000.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an apex coordinating body of State Road Transport Undertakings. It was formed with the object of promoting, inter alia, research ...

S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC612

1. Appeal E/1749/85-A was dismissed by Final Order No. 1538/96-A dated 8.5.96 on the ground that the appellant has not chosen to prosecute the appeal. Appellant was represented by Shri Rajeev Tyagi, Advocate. He moved an application before this Tribunal seeking permission to retire from the case. This Tribunal permitted him to withdraw from the case as per order dated 11.3.96 on condition that this Tribunal should issue notice of hearing direct to the party. In compliance with that direction, notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the party by registered post acknowledgment due on 18.3.96, fixing the date of hearing as 8.5.96. That notice was served on the addressee. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to note that express telegram was sent to the party on 18.1.96 informing the date of hearing fixed for 1.2.96.Restoration application No. 52/2000-A has been filed on 2.3.2000 praying for restoring the appeal to file. In that application it is admitted that the appellant receive...