Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 23 of about 277 results (0.023 seconds)Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Anokha Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)222
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. Accepting prayer for reference made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (for short the Tribunal) has referred the following question for opinion of this Court. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under Section 25(2) was without jurisdiction and invalid?'2. Factual position in a nut-shell is as follows: For the assessment year 1976-77 Commissioner of Wealth-tax (in short the Commissioner) initiated proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Act and finally directed the Wealth-tax Officer to take fair market value of assessee's property at 36, Motia Khan Dump Scheme, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi at Rs.14,18,000/-as against Rs. 7,44,400/- for the assessment year 1976-77. Basis for taking action under Section 25 of the Act was that the assessment recor...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Tewari Vs. Gen. Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT727; [2000(87)FLR124]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition is challenging order of suspension dated 16th March, 1981 enquiry proceedings held thereafter between 8th September, 1982 and 2nd June, 1983 into the charges leveled against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 16th March, 1981 and order of termination dated 31st July, 1984. In order to decide the controversy raised in this petition, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail and only relevant facts which were stressed and pointed out by both the parties at the time of arguments are noted below Vide charge-sheet dated 16th March, 1981 allegations against the petitioner related to taking away of two containers, each of 20 litres capacity filled with ATF AV gas from Indian Oil Corporation stock which were found in his car when checked by security staff of air force at sub-guard room while he was taking these containers. Allegations to this effect as mentioned in the charge-sheet read as under:- 'On 12-2-81 you were in General...
Tag this Judgment!Spectrum Technologies Usa Inc. Vs. Spectrum Power Generation Company L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ405
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. I.A. 4782/96 in Suit No. 1251/96 and I.As 7314/96 and 8609/96 in Suit No. 1905/96 were dismissed by a learned single Judge by the order dated 5th November 1997. FAO(OS) 266/97 is directed against the dismissal of I.A.4782/96 while FAO(OS) 267/97 of I.A. 7314/96. FAO(OS) 265/97 is preferred against the dismissal of I.A.8609/96. Since these three appeals arise out of the same order dated 5th November 1997 we propose to dispose them of by this common order. 2. Said Suit No. 1251/96 was filed by Spectrum Technologies USA Inc. (for short 'STUSA') against Spectrum Power Generation Co. Ltd, defendant No. 1 (for short 'SPGL'), Jaya Food Industries Pvt. Ltd, defendant No. 2 (for short 'JFI') and National Thermal Power Corporation, defendant No. 3 (for short 'NTPC'), inter alia, alleging that STUSA is a U.S based reputed firm of non-resident Indian professionals who are engaged in power related business in U.S, Mexico, Taiwan and India and Dr. A.V. Mohan Rao is its managing...
Tag this Judgment!Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-i
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)286; [2000]246ITR116(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short the 'Act').2. The factual position noted in brief is as follows: For the assessment year 1987-88 appellant, for the sake of convenience appellant is hereinafter referred to as 'assessee', filed its return of income. Several amounts were claimed on the following heads as expenditure:- (a) canteen expenses Rs.33,37,000/- (b) sports activity expenses Rs.66,15,000/- (c) sales and misc. expenses Rs.15,78,000/- (d) office expenses Rs.35,41,000/- (e) incidental expenses Rs.22,68,000/-3. Taking note of assessor's stand that the records were voluminous, it was asked to furnish several details in respect of the aforesaid claims of expenses. For the purpose of test checks, details and vouchers for two months i.e. November and December 1986 were directed to be produced. Assessing Officer found that the details were not complete and in any event relevant vouchers were not produced to substantiate t...
Tag this Judgment!Parivar Seva Sansthan Vs. Dr.(Mrs.) Veena Kalra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)534; AIR2000Delhi349; 86(2000)DLT817; 2000(54)DRJ914
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. ADMIT. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the trial court record has already been called and the point involved is very short, thereforee, the appeals may be disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly by this common judgment we propose to dispose of these two appeals as same questions of fact and law arise for consideration. 2. These two appeals are directed against the judgments and decrees delivered under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) on 23rd December, 1998 by the court of Sh. B S Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing two suits, one for possession of basement and the other for possession of ground floor of the premises No.4, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar (for short, the suit premises), and for mesne profits at the last paid rent with 50% increase, along with Rs.2,300/- per month, on account of fittings and fixtures charges, with effect from September, 1996 till the date of handing over of the possession,...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Shri Uttam Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]245ITR838(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the Revenue, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (for short Tribunal), has referred the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act), for opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 25(2) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957?' 2. Factual position in a nut-shell is as follows : assessed had filed a return of his wealth on 8.9.1972 declaring a wealth of Rs. 4,56,376/- for the assessment year 1972-73. Subsequently, he made a voluntary disclosure of his additional wealth and in revised return filed, declared net wealth of Rs. 6,80,826/-. On the basis of the revised return assessment was completed on 31.3.1976 on a net wealth of Rs. 7,53,087/-. assessed was owner of half share in a flat in Himalya House at Delhi. In both the original and revised r...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)363
ORDERValuation of shares held by assessed not done as per rule 1DRequirement to follow principles of natural justiceCatch Note:Assessee filed returns of wealth for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 for which the corresponding valuation dates were 31-12-1968, and 31-12-1969, respectively--On these dates the assessed held shares in different companies of the values of Rs. 7,58,791 and Rs. 7,58,801, respectively--Assessments were originally completed--Subsequently, the Commissioner examined the records and formed an opinion that orders of the assessing officer for both these years were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue--The Commissioner felt that orders passed by the Wealth Tax Officer were not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, accordingly, orders of the Wealth Tax Officer were set aside--The matter was carried in appeals before the Tribunal it upheld the conclusions of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax--Justified--The Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sprint Rpg India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT63TriDel
1. The issue involved is the assessable value of Telecommunication equipment imported by the appellant. The impugned order has assessed the goods on the basis of Price List holding that the invoice prices were highly discounted. The order has also imposed penalties on the appellant.2. Arguing the appeal for the appellants ld. Counsel Shri Parthasara-thi submits that the importer in India are related persons of the foreign suppliers. The effect of that relationship on the prising of the goods was investigated by the Special Valuation Branch.In this contexts he refers us the Order-in-Original No. 50/99-ACU, dated 10-1-2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Shri Parthasarathi stated that the imported goods covered by the impugned order are also from the same related supplier. Therefore, valuation of these goods is also to be decided based on the finding of the SVB regarding the acceptability of the transaction value between the supplier and the importer for the purpose of ass...
Tag this Judgment!Sam Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT866TriDel
1. The question of wiring harness manufactured by the appellants herein is the issue which arises for consideration in this appeal. According to the appellants, the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 8708 while the Revenue seeks classification under CET sub-heading 8544.2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue on classification stands settled by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shakun Products reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 184 wherein it has been held that wiring harness is classifiable under CET sub-heading 8544.00.Therefore, this issue stands settled against the assessee. Next argument of the assessee is that the demand has been raised on goods cleared after approval of the classification list and therefore, the demand cannot be raised for the period prior to the date of issue of the show cause notice. We are unable to accept this plea. The period of dispute is subsequent to 1995 when the system of filing classification list and obtaining the app...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, District-iii, New Delhi Vs. L.N. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)112; (2000)163CTR(Del)502
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1984 LAB. I.C. 554AIR 1987 1049. It is undoubtedly true and settled position of law as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that ordinarily, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated either by dismissal, discharge or retrenchment would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. The said position of law has been held to be a normal rule by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works' case (supra). In the said case it was further held that when termination of service was found to be neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered services they would legitimately be entitled to the wage for the same and if the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away there from on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due...
Tag this Judgment!