Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 12 of about 265 results (0.020 seconds)The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Kannada Education Society
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)46; [2000]246ITR731(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of revenue following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961(in short the 'Act') for opinion of this Court, by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `D' (in short the Tribunal): 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to exemption of the income from its primary school under section 10(22) of the Incometax Act, 1961?' 2. Factual position in nut shell is as follows. assessed is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short the Registration Act). It runs a primary school, a middle school and a higher secondary school. It claimed its income to be exempt under Section 10(22) of the Act. Assessing Officer accepted assessor's claim of exemption in relation to its middle and higher secondary schools. But as regards the primary school he noted that it was unaided and had substantial income and, thereforee, it had to be taken that it was ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Paam Pharmaceutical (Delhi) Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)4CompLJ61(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner challenges order dated 26th May, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, (in short, AAIFR). By said order it was held that petitioner is not a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short the Act). Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: 2. Reference under Section 15(1) of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short, BIFR). Reports had been received from Industrial Development Bank of India, (in short, IDBI), and Punjab National Bank (in short PNB) that the company's operations had been manageable till 1996-97, but it incurred huge loss of Rs. 130.86 crores during the period ending 30.9.1998 mainly on account of very high interest expenses of Rs. 46.82 crores. For previous year the loss was Rs. 13.20 crores for 12 months. Provision for bad debts to the extent of Rs. 43.90 crores (previous y...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/S. S.S. Jetley
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR289(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. As disputes had arisen between the parties, Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Arbitrator and the disputes were referred to him. After adjudication learned Arbitrator gave award dated 21st August, 1996 which was filed in this Court. Certain claims were awarded to the respondent herein. Objections to this award were filed by the appellant Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short). These objections were dismissed with costs by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated September 14, 1999 and award dated August 21, 1996 was made rule of the Court and decree was passed in terms thereof. However, as far as award of interest for presuit period is concerned, the award was modified to the extent that in respect of claim nos. 2 to 4, instead of awarding interest from March 31, 1990 to March 7, 1995, it was held that respondent would be entitled to interest w.e.f. October 1, 1991 to March 7, 1995. The present ap...
Tag this Judgment!Mithan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ48
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By this Criminal Revision Petition No. 340 of 1999 the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.9.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999 by which judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 4.12..1996 in case arising out of FIR No. 99 of 1992, under Section 379/411 IPC, Police Station, Hauz Khas. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while holding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 379, sentence the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two years together with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment of fine a further simple imprisonment of six months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence to one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine a further simple imprisonment of two months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged befor...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Pal Vs. J.P.S Ingh, Air Customes Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC329; 2003(151)ELT46(Del)
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short 'the Code') seeks quashing of criminal proceedings which emanated from a complaint filed by the Air Customs Officerrespondent under Sections 132 & 132(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1992 (for Short 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that sanction for prosecution has been given without the sanctioning authority applying its mind. The petitioner has also called into question the competency of the Additional Collector of Customs to accord sanction for prosecution. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the Air Customs Officer, Indira Gandhi International Airport, to the effect that the Additional Collectors of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport, has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner herein by virtue of the powers vested under Section 137(1) of the Act which has aut...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sandeep Jhalani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]246ITR779(Delhi)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dividend received by the assessed from Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to relief under Section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'3. It is accepted that in CIT v. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. : [1980]126ITR673(Delhi) , relief under Section 80J of the Act has been allowed. That being the position, the dividend received by the assessed is entitled to relief under Section 80K of the Act. The answer to the question is, thereforee, in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue.4. Reference stands disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chuni Lal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]246ITR736(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in following its order dated March 28, 1974, in the case of the assessed for the assessment year 1965-66 and thereby allowing interest of Rs. 2,400 claimed as a deduction by the assessed on the loan of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi, in its books ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None appears for the assessed in spite of notice.3. The Tribunal for its decision relied on the decision of this court in Rattan Lal v. ITO : [1975]98ITR681(Delhi) . In view of the fact that the apex court has overruled the said judgment of this court in Jamunaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT : [1981]130ITR244(SC) , the answer t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Kannada Education Society
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)46
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for opinion of this court, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') 1'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to exemption of the income from its primary school under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 '2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows. assessed is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Registration Act). It runs a primary school, a middle school and a higher secondary school. It claimed its income to be exempt under section 10(22) of the Act. Assessing officer accepted assessor's claim of exemption in relation to its middle and higher secondary schools. But as regards the primary school he noted that it was unaided and had substantial inc...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Tewari and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ415
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this common judgment/order we propose to dispose of the aforestated two writ petitions filed in this Court in the nature of public interest litigation. In both the writ petitions similar questions are raised and the main focus is on alleged unauthorised transfer of 17 Bighas and 14 bids was of land and unauthorised constructions made on 10 Bighas 14 bids was of such land situated at Model Town, Delhi with a prayer to demolish the same. In order to appreciate and to enable us to answer the points raised in both the writ petitions and urged before us during the course of arguments it would to necessary to narrate some of the background facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions. 2. Approximately 17 Bighas 14 bids was of land including 10 Bighas 14 bids was of land where superstructures are raised by the respondents 5 to 10 are involved in the present writ petitions which are situate in Village Malikpur Chhawni now known as B-2 Block, Model Town, Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chuni Lal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]246ITR736(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat C. J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for the opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'C' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in following its order dated March 28, 1974, in the case of the assessed for the assessment year 1965-66 and thereby allowing interest of Rs. 2,400 claimed as a deduction by the assessed on the loan of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi, in its books ?'We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. None appears for the assessed in spite of notice.2. The Tribunal for its decision relied on the decision of this court in Raman Lal v. Income Tax Officer : [1975]98ITR681(Delhi) . In view of the fact that the apex court was overruled the said judgment of this court in Jamunaprasad Kanaiyalal v. CI...
Tag this Judgment!