Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments

V.K. Mathur Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order dt.22nd April, 1993, of CIT(A). They pertain to asst. yr 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. Both these appeals are being decided by a common order as identical grounds are raised therein. In ITA No. 4358, the assessee has raised the following ground "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not cancelling the penalty imposed by the learned AO under Section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, and holding that the delay in filing the return of income was not on account of a reasonable cause." 3. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the return was filed late due to the negligence on the part of the counsel of the assessee and it was also his contention that in the circumstances penalty should not have been imposed upon him. Reliance was placed on Salahuddm and Ors. v. ITO (1983) 16 TTJ (Ind) 392, ITO v. Pashupati Banerjee (1982) 13 TTJ (Cal) 440. Apart from this reliance was placed upon Laxmi Cutpiece Bhan...

Jastinder Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ11

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegation that he was found to be in possession of pecuniary resources as on 9.2.1976 disproportionate to his known source of income. Appellant was found guilty of criminal misconduct and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and he was directed to pay fine of Rs.1 lakhs or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Appellant joined services with Director General of Technical Development as Junior Field Officer on 10.7.1953 in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-500 and was promoted as Assistant Development Officer Grade-II on 7.2.1959 in the pay-scale of Rs. 400-600. He became Assistant Development Officer Grade-I on 4.1.1962 and remained on the said post till 7.6.1966 in the pay-scale of Rs. 450-950. He was promoted as Development Officer w.e.f. 8.6.1966 in the ...

V.K. Tulsian Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4307

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate declining to accept the final police report and taking cognizance of the offence under section 376 IPC. The petitioner has also prayed that FIR No. 1421/97 registered under section 376 IPC may be quashed. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under: 2. The complainant, Saraswati Thakur, aged about 26 years, wife of Arvind Thakur, having one child, lodged an FIR under section 376 IPC against the petitioner in which she mentioned that after working with the petitioner for three months when she demanded money for the work done, the petitioner started avoiding her. On her persistent request, the petitioner told her to come on Friday, i.e., 28.11.1997. On that date, she remained there in the cabin for the whole day and at 6:00 p.m., the petitioner committed r...

Rathi Ispat Limited (M/S.) Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(76)ECC332

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Rule D.B. Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the CEGAT), dated 22nd June, 2000 is subject matter of challenge. By said order deposit of entire disputed demand was directed as condition precedent for restoration of appeal already dismissed for nondeposit. According to petitioner such direction has no legal sanction. 2. A few relevant aspects need to be noted before the main grievance can be loked into. By order dated 25th November, 1997 Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 4,25,54,960 for the period from March 1994 to November 1995, Rs, 1,83,94,168 for the period from August 1993 to February 1994, Rs. 88,12,974/- for the period from March 1994 to July 1994, disallowed the Modvat credit of 1,00,40,124/- and imposed penalty of Rs.79,83,000/- in addition to personal penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs each on the three Directo...

Haryana Warehousing Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)859

ORDERKrishan Swarup, A.M.In this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla dated 28-11-1997, for the assessment year 1992-93, the grounds taken by the assessed run as under :'1. (i) That the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the charge of interest under section 234B amounting to Rs. 2,82,59,843 is wholly unjustified and against law.(ii) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a perfunctory order, without in any manner discussing the written arguments filed by the appellant.(iii) That the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics cases followed by Patna High Court. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in not following the said judgments is totally arbitrary.It is, thereforee, prayed that interest charged by the assessing officer and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) be quashed.'2. As is manifest, the challenge by the assessed is to the levy of interest under ...

The Delhi State Cooperative Milk Marketing and Supply Fed. Ltd. Vs. Uo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ629

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to accept supply 50,000 litres of milk per day from the petitioner according to the dividing schedule of 12 months. Petitioner also seeks a direction for respondent to enter into a permanent agreement with regard to supply of milk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the petitioner is not challenging the policy of the respondents to give preference to procurement of milk from the State Dairy Federations for the Delhi Milk Scheme. He submits that the petitioner's objection emanates out of the unfair rejection or non-placement of orders on the petitioner for the supply of milk. 3. Respondents in the counter affidavit have refuted the said allegation and explained that it was pending finalisation of the National Milk Procurement Policy that adhoc arrangements were made...

T.D. Tyagi Vs. the Chairman, Ndmc and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ66

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. 2. Petitioner, who was working as a Deputy Director (Education) with the NCT of Delhi, was sent on deputation as Joint Director (Education), NDMC, on 7th of October, 1994. In pursuance of her posting with the NDMC, petitioner was allotted flat No. 15 (V), Satya Sadan, Chanakayapuri, New Delhi on 21st of August, 1995. One of the terms of allotment was that petitioner would vacate the said flat within seven days of her repatriation to the parent department. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been repatriated with effect from 31st of July, 1997. 3. Petitioner did not vacate the flat allotted to her. However, this was not acceded to. She sought extension and desired to retain the flat under Inter-pool exchange of government accommodation. The Estate Department of the NCt also requested the NDMC, vide letter of 23rd July, 1998, to allow the petitioner to retain the flat and stated that a flat, in lieu of the one retained, would be made available as and...

G. Vijayaraghavan Vs. M.D. Central Warehousing Corpn. and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 86(2000)DLT844; 2000(54)DRJ895

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 12 & 13 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks to set aside the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator and further seeks the appointment of a new & independent arbitrator to adjudicate the claims. 2. The main plea of the petitioner is based upon that Clause 19 of the Contract between the parties the relevant portion of which reads as follows: 'All disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever (Except the matter referred to in Sub-Clause 30 of Clause XXI and as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be referred to the Sole arbitration of any person appointed by the Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is an employee of the Corporation that he had to deal with the matters to which the con...

The Cit Delhi-i Vs. the Printers House Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)72

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In these references, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following common question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for our opinion: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper construction of the collaboration agreement dated 9th June, 1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the entire payment of 1,25,000 Dutch Guilders was for the acquisition of patent rights by the assessed company?' 2. Though the references are four in number but they pertain to three assessment years, namely, assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, for which the relevant previous years ended on 31st December of each of the previous calendar years. The question referred and the statements of cases drawn by the Tribunal being similar for all the years, this judgment will govern all the references. Although Tribunal's order in respect of assessment ...

M/S. Ram Kishan and Sons Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR595(Delhi)

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Regd. Partnership Firm and is carrying on the business of construction works for the Union of India. The petitioner-Firm was awarded Contract Agreement No. IV/EE. IV/UNIDO/79-80 by respondent No.1/UOI for the work of renovation, carpeting and re-furnishing of Vigyan Bhawan SH: Supply of Chairs. That certain differences and disputes had arisen between the parties and as per the Arbitration Clause No.25 in the Contract Agreement between the parties, Mr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator who later on resigned on 4.3.1983 and thereafter Mr. Ch. Prabhakara Rao, the Respondent No.3 herein, was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer (NDZ), C.P.W.D., New Delhi under the letter dated 15.9.1983 of respondent No.1/UOI to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator made and announced his award by granting a sum of Rs.1,002.50/- to the claimants/petitioners here...