Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India Vs. Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1199; 88(2000)DLT309; 2000(55)DRJ408
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order dated 22nd September, 1993 whereunder the respondent was dismissed from service. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that during the Red Alert, 147 Sqn.AF had been moved to Khuri village in Jaisalmer and was camping in the General Reserve Engineering Force (for short 'GREF') premises. On 29th March, 1987 at about 10.30 hrs., the deceased Mohinder Singh of 95 RCC (GREF), while reversing his vehicle accidentally uprooted one of the pegs holding the guy wires of P-12 Radar Antenna. This inevitably led to an altercation between him and the air force personnel. However, the situation was defused. Thereafter, at about 2200 hrs., the deceased Mohinder Singh, under the influence of liquor, again picked up arguments with the defense Security Corps (for short 'DSC') personnel and started abusing and threatening them. The m...
Surender Kumar @ Happy and Sanjeev Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ263
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. These two appeals, which are interlinked being directed against a judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 226/96, are disposed of by this common judgment. At an age when the appellants and their coaccused were to push pen in pursuit of education, they are alleged to have pushed a knife to the chest of another youngster of their age, causing his homicidal death. A sad case of juvenile delinquency. It is not easy to precisely define juvenile delinquency. Major hurdle in the way of providing a definite definition is one which is normally encountered while defining crime in general i.e. the choice between the social and legal definitions. 2. Juvenile delinquency is not uncommon or peculiar to any particular age. It is, in almost every age regarded as contemporary problem. Like adult criminal behavior it has always existed in some form or other. As observed by the author of 'Criminology Problems & Perspectives', this problem has ...
Momina Qureshi Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi90
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner Momina Qureshi, a house-wife, with her family had been running a Dhaba, i.e. a small eating place at F-218, Lado Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi, since 1994. Petitioner was duly registered with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for running the trade of dhaba since 1994. The said registration was renewed on 17th May, 2000, up to 31-3-2001.2. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice-cum-order bearing No. DHO/ HZ/2000/485 dated 30-6-2000, issued by respondent No. 2. The notice cum-order purported to reject the ad hoc registration granted to the petitioner for running the dhaba, on the following ground :'Preparing buffalo's meat under insanitary condition.'Petitioner was also directed to close the trade within 3 days of receipt of the notice-cum-order, failing which action was proposed to be taken under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, for sealing of the premises without any further intimation. Petitioner, aggrieved by this order, filed the pres...
Cit Vs. Central Cottage Industries Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN516(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. All these references involve a common question. Pursuant to directions given by this court in IT Case Nos. 116 to 118 of 1977, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' has referred following question under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to a deduction on account of gratuity liability ?'We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. None appears for the assessed in spite of notice.2. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail as we find that the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration of the matter with the following observations :'On a consideration of the submissions before us, we are of the view that the assessed was entitled to a deduction on account of gratuity liability as the liability arose ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Swamy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)14; 2000(56)DRJ24; [2001]248ITR131(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These five references, at the instance of the Revenue, involve identical issues and thereforee are disposed of by the common judgment. On being moved under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74.2. The following question has been referred for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income from the commission and the interest thereon are to be assessed in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessed was the karta, by reason that the commission was impressed with the character of the Hindu undivided family, and (not ?) in the assessment of the assessed as his individual income ?'3. For the assessment years 1973-74, the follow...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bishamber Nath Ram Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)81; [2001]248ITR396(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'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 35,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c), by holding that the negative onus which lies on the assessed under the Explanationn to Section 271(1)(c) stands discharged ?'2. The factual position essentially is as follows :The assessed, a registered firm of commission agents in ghee, was also carrying on money-lending business. While scrutinising the books of account for the assessment year 1965-66, the Assessing Officer found a large number of cash credits. He treated them as unexplained and added a sum of Rs. 4,62,920 as income of the assessed from un...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late M.K. Swamy, Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)472
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.These five references at the instance of the revenue , involve identical issues and, thereforee, are disposed of by the common judgment. On being moved under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), following questions have been referred for opinion of this court. Dispute relates to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74.Following question has been referred for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income from commission and the interest thereon are to be assessed in the assessment of the HUF of which the assessed was the Karta, by reason that the commission was impressed with the character of the HUF, and in the assessment of the assessed as his individual income ?'For the assessment year 1973-74 following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Chadha and Co. India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR782(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 (for short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short the 'Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in deleting from the income of company for the assessment year 1970-71, the property income of Rs. 60,185 in respect of the property situated at No. 8/57, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, and in holding that the said property income belonged to Atma Ram Sanatan Dharam College, New Delhi ?'2. The factual position is almost undisputed. The assessed acquired Plot No. 8/37 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, as per deed of conveyance, dated May 29, 1967. A factory was built thereon as sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's order dated January 31, 1967. The property was let out to Liberty Shirts, Bombay (Delhi Clothing Co.) at a mo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bishamber Nath Ram Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: [2000]248ITR396(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 the 'Act'), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 35,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c), by holding that the negative onus which lies on the assessed under the Explanationn to section 271(1)(c) stands discharged ?'The factual position essentially is as follows :The assessee, a registered firm of commission agents in ghee, was also carrying on money-lending business. While scrutinising the books of account for the assessment year 1965-66, the Assessing Officer found a large number of cash credits. He treated them as unexplained and added a sum of Rs. 4,62,920 as i...
Sunmar Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT775TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal dated 28-1-94 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.2. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether M.S.Tank/bodies manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under 8707 as claimed by the party or under 8704 as per the department.3. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri S.N. Singh, ld. SDK while reiterating the findings given by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai referred to the finding portion in para five of the order which reads as under :- "5. I have considered the submissions made in the application as well as in the counter-objections. The issue before me is whether the tanker manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under Tariff Heading 87.04 or 87.07. Tariff Heading 87.04 is for the motor vehicle for transport of goods. Even the chassis of motor vehicle meant for transporting the goods are classifiable under this heading. Therefore, when the motor vehicle for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »