Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 26 of about 254 results (0.017 seconds)Director of Income-tax (Exemption) and anr. Vs. Apparel Export Promoti ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]244ITR734(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal passed on November 13, 1998, in the assessor's appealin respect of the assessment year 1993-94. 2. Having heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. B.B. Ahuja, learned senior counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.3. The respondent-assessee is a society registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. It filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year in the status of association of persons and claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Relying on the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act, initially inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, and later substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, with effect from April 1, 1992, the Assessing Officer denied the benefit under ...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Counci ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]244ITR736(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, arising out of ITA No. 2843/Delhi of 1996 and said to be questions of law, for our opinion:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in granting the benefit of Section 11 in view of the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the forfeited amount cannot be treated as property of the assessed and is not the income of the assessed ?'2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in declining to make a reference on the proposed questions.3. The petition pertains to the assessment year 1992-93. The respondent-assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Agro Engineering Products Delhi (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]244ITR55(Delhi)
M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.By this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent under section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 2.76C of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner-company had filed false return of its income for the assessment year 1985-86 and had concealed considerable income which otherwise belonged to it. By the agreement dated 2-4-1984, the petitioner-company entered into a contract with Taj Services Ltd. to complete a project of silo-com-poultry in Tanro, Haryana, on turnkey basis for a consideration of Rs. 24,65,000. On scrutiny of the income-tax return filed by the petitioner-company for the assessment year 1985-86, it was found by the assessing officer that the petitioner-company had wrongfully debited an expenditure of Rs. 1,44,608 tow...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Amar Shingal Vs. Wg. Cdr. Pradeep Shingal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(2001)DMC495
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Guardian Judge allowing the application of respondent under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Mr. Bhaduri, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amendment sought for are neither necessary nor proper for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Mr. Bhaduri has further contended that by the proposed amendments which have been allowed, the respondent wants to change the nature of the suit. He wants to withdraw the admissions made in the written statement. Mr. Bhaduri has further contended that, as a matter of fact, the application for amendment contains only paragraphs 4 to 9, but actually same have been sub-divided into various paragraphs making altogether 24 paragraphs. He has further contended that the amendment sought for are mala fide and the Trial Court erred in allowing the amendments. He has further contended that the amendment Have changed the nature of t...
Tag this Judgment!