Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Tej International (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against order dt.30th March, 1993, passed by the learned CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi, for asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The solitary ground of appeal is against the levy of interest under ss. 234B, 234C and 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that assessee, a private limited company, did not have any taxable income in the relevant previous year, except deemed income under s. 115J of the IT Act, 1961.The learned AO levied interest under ss. 234B and 234C for short payment of advance tax on the aforesaid deemed income. The learned AO also levied interest under s. 201(1A) on delayed deposits of tax deducted at source. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who, relying upon the ratio of decision rendered in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 170 (AT)(SB) upheld levy of interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the IT Act. The learned CIT(A) also upheld levy of interest u...

innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the assessee has contested the computation of higher total income at Rs. 1,03,59,205 by making prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1997-98 which was confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) in the first appeal.2. The assessee filed return showing income as per MAT under Section 115 JA at Rs. 10,01,856. This was shown as 30% of the book profit of Rs. 33,39,518. This book profit was arrived at by the assessee by making adjustment in the book profit as per P&L Account as under :--decapitalised Rs. 9,994,101.58Add: Previous years excessdepreciation written back Rs. 2,974,414.99 ------------------- 3. The Assessing Officer did not accept the aforesaid profit of Rs. 10,01,856 declared under Section 115JA on the ground that the assessee had not worked out 30% of the real and correct book profit of Rs. 1,03,59,205. He noted that the adjustments made in the real and correct book profit before arriving at the book profit of Rs. 3...

icm Engineering Workers Union Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1037; 89(2001)DLT529; 2000(56)DRJ851; (2001)ILLJ1127Del

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. All these writ petitions involve same questions of law based on sub-stantially same set of facts. These writ petitions were, thereforee, heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In order to dispose of these petitions it may not be necessary to state the facts in detail. Individual cases are dealt with at the later stage. To, answer the common questions involved in all these cases, the common factual background, necessary for the decision may be summarised first :- 3. Petitioners in these petitions are contract workers and/or the unions representing such contract workers. They are engaged by various contractors who are also imp leaded as parties in these petitions. These contractors have been awarded the work by the principal employer. Admittedly, engagement of such contract workers is governed by the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). According to the petitione...

Singer India Ltd. Vs. Amita Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1076; 88(2000)DLT186

ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1998 passed by Sh. P. S. Teji, Additional District Judge. Tis Hazari, Delhi in Suit No. 11/95. By the said judgment and decree, suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein for recovery of possession of suit premises bearing Flat Nos. 331-B, 331-C and 331-D, third floor, 6, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi having a total area of 495 sq. feet has been decreed. 2. This suit came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent against defendant/appellant in the following factual background: 3. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and in respect of the suit property as mentioned above on monthly rent of Rs. 14304/-. The plaintiff had let out the premises to the M/s. Indian Shaving Machine Company Ltd. now known as Singer India Ltd. on 1st September, 1985. The tenancy of the defendant was monthly commencing from 1st day of every...

Madan Stores (P) Ltd. Vs. Regional Manager, Indian Petro Chemicals Cor ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR127(Delhi)

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In the suit claiming a number of reliefs, the plaintiff filed I.A.8210/2000 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC seeking issue of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from invoking three bank guarantees being Nos. 43/6 dated 29th March 2000, 42/13 dated 16th March 1999 and 42/04 dated 31st August 1998. By the order dated 17th August 2000 summons in the suit and notice of the said I.A. were directed to be issued to defendants returnable on 25th September 2000. Dissatisfied with the order of issuing notice only of said I.A., the plaintiff filed FAO(OS) 240/2000 and therein show cause notice was ordered to be issued vide order dated 22nd August 2000 to the respondent-defendants returnable on 6th September 2000 and in the meantime respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was restrained from invoking the said bank guarantees by a Division Bench. On defendants 1 to 4's counsel making statement on 6th September 2000 that defendants have not even invoked...

Guruman Construction Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ848

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The petitioner has approached the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the issuance of a direction to Respondent No. 1 to file the original Arbitration Agreement and for the appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties. The allegations in the plaint are that the petitioner made arrangements for commencing the work for the which the contract was given to it. The land was low-lying and due to non-filling up of earth on all sides of the basement and insufficient space for stacking of material, the labour was hindered. It has also been alleged that the Respondent delayed supplies of cement and steel and although bills were cleared payments were not made due to non-availability of funds with the Respondent. The 14th running bill, for a sum of Rs. 7,08,384/- was not paid and, thereforee, the petitioner was forced to cease work in January 1999. The Respondent had unilaterally granted an...

Palinder Singh Bedi Vs. the National Rifle Association of India and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ463

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of an application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC) praying for rejection of the suit.2. Brief facts are : that the plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No. 1- The National Rifle Association of India (for short NRAI), and its Secretary General, Baljit Singh Sethi (defendant No. 2), alleging therein that defendant No. 1, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, was established to promote the sport of marksmanship throughout India and to train the citizens in safe and efficient handling of fire arms. It is alleged that the plaintiff is more than 77 years of age, having business and agricultural income from 70 acres of farmland; that he had been the member of NRAI for last about 30 years and had held the post of Vice President and Governing Body member for about 10 years; that he was associated with several prestigious organisations and thus he enjoyed very hig...

Tej International (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)650

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against order dated 30-3-1993, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi, for assessment year 1989-90.2. The solitary ground of appeal is against the levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that assessee, a private limited company, did not have any taxable income in the relevant previous year, except deemed income under section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned assessing officer levied interest under sections 234B and 234C for short payment of advance tax on the aforesaid deemed income. The learned assessing officer also levied interest under section 201(1A) on delayed deposits of tax deducted at source. Aggrieved, the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, relying upon the ratio of decision rendered in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (1993) 199 ITR 170 ...

innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD445(Delhi)

ORDERPer Sikander Khan, A.M. In this appeal the assessed has contested the computation of higher total income at Rs. 1,03,59,205 by making prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1997-98 which was confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the first appeal.2. The assessed filed return showing income as per MAT under section 115 JA at Rs. 10,01,856. This was shown as 30 per cent of the book profit of Rs. 33,39,518. This book profit was arrived at by the assessed by making adjustment in the book profit as per Profit & Loss Account as under :Rs.'Profit before prior period adjustment & tax10,359,205.00Less : Previous years interest de-capitalized 9,994,101.58Add : Previous years excess depreciation written back2,974,414.99 3,339,518.793. The assessing officer did not accept the aforesaid profit of Rs. 10,01,856 declared under section 115JA on the ground that the assessed had not worked out 30 per cent of the real and correc...

S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC357

1. The departmental proceedings which led to these appeals can be outlined thus: Central Excise (Preventive) Officers, on 14.10.1998, intercepted one 'tempo' (goods vehicle) loaded with a consignment of 65 cartons of tissue paper rolls, napkins and facial tissue consigned by M/s S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd., Hari Nager, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'S.R. Tissues') to M/s Sugandh Agencies, Chandigarh, along with a consignment of 74 cartons of Aluminium Home Foils from M/s S.R. Foils Ltd., Hari Nager, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'S. R. Foils') to the same consignee. The officers, after recording the statement of the driver of the vehicle and examining the documents produced by him, seized the consignment of 65 cartons of tissue paper rolls etc. which were believed to be liable to confiscation. On 15.10.1998, they visited the factory premises of S.R. Tissues and found therein machinery for converting jumbo rolls of tissue paper to various sizes of napkin, rolls and facial ti...