Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 25 of about 277 results (0.020 seconds)Marriott International Inc. and ors. Vs. Ansal Hotels Limited and anr. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)1003; AIR2000Delhi337; 2000(3)ARBLR369(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT873; 2000(56)DRJ435
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. By this appeal, the Appellants seek to challenge the order dated March 8, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby their application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal has been raised by the respondents on the ground that Section 9 falls in Part-I of the Act and Part-I applies only to those arbitrations where the place of arbitration is in India. The contention of the respondents, thereforee, is that as the arbitration proceedings were being held before the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration in Malaysia, Section 9 of the Act will have no applicability and the petition itself was, thereforee, not maintainable. It is submitted that in case the petition itself was not maintainable, this appeal will also not lie and is not maintainable. 2. The contention of the Appellants, however, is that the Act provides a comp...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. JaIn Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT550; 2000(53)DRJ418a
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks the quashing of the decision of respondent No. 1 bearing No. F. 32(34)/6/79-L&B;/Vig./10236 dated 17.4.1985, rejecting the petitioner's claim for an alternative plot admeas-uring 250 Sq.yds in South Zone. Petitioner's claim is rejected based on the policy decision taken by the Delhi Administration to reject the application for alternative allotment of persons, who had not applied on or before 15.12.1963, in accordance with the requirement of the public notice, published pursuant to the scheme of 1961. 2. This case has a chequered history of litigation, which is briefly recapitulated for appreciation of the controversy involved in this case. (i) Petitioner's grand father late Sh. Mehar Chand Jain along with others owned land at Sheikh Sarai Village admeasuring 22 bighas. The said lands were acquired vide award No. 1306-1378 dated 16.5.1961. Compensation was also awarded by the Land AcquIsition Collector amounting to Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi-1 Vs. Mrs. R.B. Patel
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)107; [2000]246ITR341(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. These two reference applications invoke an identical question, per-taining to assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, which has been referred under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Act, 1957 (for short the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E, (for short the Tribunal) for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act can be invoked to rectify the original assessment and to include the value of the jewellery, thus giving effect to the amendments effected in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 by the Finance (No.2) Act of 1971?'2. Since answer to the question would depend upon the scope and ambit of Section 35 of the Act, a detailed reference to the factual position is unnecessary. In brief, it is as follows: Assessments were originally com-pleted for the two assessment years. When such assessments were taken up, the assessed claimed exemption in res...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]247ITR103(Delhi)
1. All these twelve references relate to different questions but in respect of the same assessed. Some of the reference applications have been filed by the Revenue and some by the assessed.2. The question referred for the opinion of this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act'), at the instance of the Revenue is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of compensation for which the appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court was not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessed ?'3. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in declining to admit an additional legal ground of appeal regarding inclusion of a sum of Rs. 1,36,400 in the net wealth of the assessed awarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, on May 27, 1977 ?'4. So far a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Trading Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN117(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 75,000 being forfeited security deposits was not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,79,547 being the amount guaranteed by the bank was not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Factual position as indicated in the statement of the case is as follows:For the assessment year 1972-73 corresponding to previous year ending on 31-3-1972, additions were made by the assessing officer in respect of amounts relatable to forfeiture of security deposit, and amount received on encashment of a bank...
Tag this Judgment!Lml Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT410TriDel
1. These are four appeals. Since the issue involved is common, therefore, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant imported scooter components viz. mirror and grip, and name plates made of metal and plastic in the first 3 appeals and detachable luggage box in Appeal No. C/277/99-NB.3. Whether the above goods fall under the restricted category of import or allowed import without any import licence is an issue to be considered in these appeals.4. It was the contention of the party that the above items do not fall under restricted category and since the goods as parts of motor vehicle they are covered under OGL in respect of the items covered under the first 3 appeals. It was also the contention from the party that lower authority ought not to have been guided by their own individual view on the eligibility of the appellant and to import the goods in question but should have been guided by the Import-Export Policy effective from 1st April, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT477TriDel
1. The respondents herein are registered with the Central Excise Department for the manufacture of acrylic staple fibre and waste of synthetic fibres i.e. acrylic staple fibre, which gets generated during the course of manufacture of acrylic staple fibres. They filed classification lists claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 20% on acrylic staple fibre waste in terms of the provisions of Notification 85/95-CE dated 18.05.95. This Notification extends partial exemption to waste of man-made staple fibre and man-made filament yarn falling under Chapter 54 or 55 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985.Exemption is, however, not available to a factory producing man-made staple fibre and man-made filament yarn of organic polymers by manufacturing process either by (a) polymerisation of organic polymers or (b) chemical transformation of natural organic polymers. The benefit under this Notification was claimed by the respondents on the ground that they were not carrying out the proces...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tru Wheels Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT205TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed this reference application stating that following questions of law arise out of the Tribunal's order :- "(1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that it is the option of the assessee not to avail exemption under exemption notification but pay duty to avail modvat credit under Rule 57G where the bar of Rule 57G is applicable. (2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in altering the expression in Rule 57C and whether the embargo laid down by this Rule is absolute and categorical. (3) Whether the impugned order No. B/662/B1, dated 21.04.1998 is legally correct and proper in terms of Andhra Pradesh High Court's order in the case of Ganesh Metal Processing Industries v. Govt. of India reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 11 (AP)." 2. Arguing the reference petition, Shri Ashok Kumar, Id. JDR submits that the goods of the appellants were exempted and since the final product was exempted under the modvat credit scheme, credit of duty on the inputs cannot be taken as provide...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarjit Singh Kanwar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)67; [2000]246ITR104(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessed following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E' (in short the 'Tribunal') under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957 (in short the 'Act') for opinion of this Court:- (i) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. 1958 were mandatory and the valuation of unquoted shares should be made in accordance with that rule and not on yield basis as contended by the assessee? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the debt amounting to Rs.1,33,327/- was not deductible from net wealth in accordance with the provisions of section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957?' 2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 3. For the assessment year 1977-78 assessed had, while filin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Kuku Narang
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)319; [2000]246ITR198(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. On being moved by the Revenue 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 following question for opin-ion of this Court : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs.25,000/- levied u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. Factual position, as stated in the statement of the case, is as follows: For the assessment year 1971-72 assessed filed her return declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,36,083/-. The Wealth-tax officer completed the assessment on a total wealth of Rs.1,71,040/- During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer noticed two omissions on the part of the assessee. First omission related to remuneration receivable from M/s. J. Bond and Company Private Limited amounting to Rs. 18,700/- and the second one related to income from boats receivable. amounting to Rs. 3,252/- w...
Tag this Judgment!