Delhi Court October 2001 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.
Cit Vs. Sharpedge Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN593(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These four references involve identical issues and are, thereforee, taken up for disposal together. At the instance of the revenue, following question has been referred for opinion pursuant to the direction of this court under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Surtax Act), read with section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' :'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the amount of development rebate reserve written back to the general reserve was to be considered as forming part of the capital base of the company for computing its capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'The dispute relates to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80.2. The assessed, a public limited company, had written back several amounts of development rebate reserve to general reserve wi...
State (Nct of Delhi) Vs. Ajit Seth @ Ajit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)317; 2002(61)DRJ178
Usha Mehra, J.1. Can love thrive where one makes the rigid rules to follow, Love is a gamewith no rule book. A man in passion rides a wild horse and so we have heard.Love is blind but can it be that blind in madness that it turn the man cruel, crazyand barbaric never heard. It can be seen in this case. It is a tragic story of two unfortunate innocent children, namely; Master Sunny Arora aged about seven yearsand Ms. Shikha Arora aged about three or three and a half years. Their life wassnatched at the cruel hands of the appellant Ajit Seth. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after due deliberation on the basisof oral and documentary evidence concluded that charge under Section 364 IPCand under Section 302 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against theappellant. He consequently convicted him on both the charges. Under Section302 IPC he has been sentenced to death and under Section 364 IPC he has beensentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also fine of Rs. 1,000/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›