Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

Addl. Director of Income Tax Vs. M.D. Memorial Charitable and Educatio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)595

ORDERK.C. Singhal, J.M.Since common issue is involved in both these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The only issue common to both the appeals relates to the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(e) on account of late filing of the return.2. The assessed is a charitable and educational society. The penalty proceedings were initiated under section 272A(2)(e) for the years under consideration on the ground that the assessed had not filed the return of income within the period specified under section 139(4A). The Explanationn of the assessed was that the only activity of the trust is running of the recognised school whose income is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Explanationn was not accepted by the assessing officer and accordingly penalty of Rs. 51,200 was imposed for assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 14,700 for assessment year 1993-94.3. The matter was carried before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has ...

Cit Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN185(Delhi)

The reference has been made by the Tribunal to this court for its opinion on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the grant received from the government by the assessed-company, which is a 100 per cent government company, to enable the company to function, was a capital or revenue receipt ?'2. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. is a government company within the meaning of section 651 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It received grants-in-aid from the government on various dates, i.e., Rs. 4 lakhs on 28-2-1973, Rs. 20 lakhs on 10-12-1973 and Rs. 7 lakhs on 25-3-1974. These grants-in-aid were utilised in the profit and loss account maintained by the said company in the said years which is as under :Rs.The year ending on 31-3-19733,46,663The year ending on 31-3-197422,20,891The year ending on 31-3-19755,32,4463. The said amounts were assessed as the income of the company. Against the said assessment, appeals...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]257ITR241(Delhi)

1. The reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for its opinion on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the grants received from the Government by the assessed-company, which is a 100 per cent. Government company, to enable the company to function, was a capital or revenue receipt ?' 2. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act. It received grants-in-aid from the Government on various dates, i.e., Rs. 4 lakhs on February 28, 1973, Rs. 20 lakhs on December 10, 1973 and Rs. 7 lakhs on March 25, 1974. These grants-in-aid were utilised in the profit and loss account maintained by the said company in the said years which is as under : Rs.The year ending on 31-3-19733,46,663The year ending on 31-3-197422,20,891The year ending on 31-3-19755,32,4463. The said amounts were assessed as the income of the company. Against the said assessme...

Kamla Bhargava Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 97(2002)DLT321

Devinder Gupta, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since questions involved are common and the land acquired, for which compensation is to be determined was also located within the same revenue state.2. On 2.12.1963 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued expressing the intention of the Delhi Administration to acquire 85 bighas of land situate in village Kotla Mubarakpur for Planned Development of Delhi. After considering objections under Section 5A of the Act declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 12.12.1969 for acquiring 51 bigha 16 bids was land out of total land, which had been notified earlier. On 15.1.1970 Collector made his award No. 38/69-70 with respect to an area of 39 bighas 10 biswas. The left out area of 8 bigha 4 bids was was found to be built up and for the remaining area of 4 bigha 6 bids was there was stay operating. The Collector Land Acquisition in his awar...

Castrol Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mukesh Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT466; 2002(61)DRJ752; 2002(24)PTC316(Del); 2002(2)RAJ121

Vijender Jain, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter alias stating that plaintiff No. 1 Castrol Limited was a Company incorporated under the laws of England. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff No. 2 is carrying on business in processing and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds and various speciality products in India. It is the stand of the plaintiff that plaintiff No. 2, was set up and in December , 1982 Indrol Lubricants and Specialities Pvt. Ltd., in view of amalgamation between Indrol Lubricants and plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Castrol Limited became a public limited company and the name was changed from 1st January, 1990 as M/s. Castrol India Limited. The plaintiff No. 1 has got Trade Mark Castrol registered in India on 17.11.1969 in respect of industrial oils and greases, hydraulic fluids being oils, lubricants, fuels and ...

Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Victor Cable Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT694

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The arbitrator Shri O.P. Anand had filed the award along with the proceedings. On 7th January, 1994 notices were issued to the parties regarding the filing of the award and objections, if any. On 8th March, 1994 the matter came up before the Deputy Registrar. On behalf of the applicant/objector it was stated that objections have been filed on 14th February, 1994 vide diary No. 4703. The Deputy Registrar directed the office to trace the same and place the objections on the record. It was again taken up for hearing on 27th October, 1994 and the order of the Deputy Registrar reads:-'On 8.3.1994, learned counsel for the respondents had stated that he had filed the objections on behalf of the respondents. On enquiry from the office, it is revealed that the objections in fact have been filed in Suit No. 35/93 and not in the present suit. No one is present on behalf of the respondents to clarify the petition. Let the matter be renotified for 8.11.1994 for clarification by ...

M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. Wig Brothers Builders and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT818; 2002(61)DRJ682

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order of learned Single of this Court on 15th November, 2000 in Arbitration Application No. 277/00, whereby and whereunder Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.R. Khanna (a retired Judge of this Court) was appointed as an Arbitrator to determine the disputes which arose between the petitioner herein and the first respondent. The writ petitioner herein filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') inter alias alleging the following facts:2. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a turnkey contract with the second respondent for construction of four Towards at Ghaziabad. In terms of the said contract, the first respondent was required to supply certain material to the second respondent and by an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 17th January, 1994 petitioner agreed to supply 7480 cubic meters of finished fill of the spec...

international Data Processing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT13

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Shri P.S. Sawhney had been appointed as the arbitrator. The learned arbitrator had submitted the award. In pursuance thereto objections have been filed under Section 30 read with Section of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The same have been filed on behalf of the objector (Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking).2. It has been pleaded that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings because principles of rest judicata have been ignored. The applicant (M/s International Date Processing Company Pvt. Ltd) had filed civil writ No. 3302/90 before this court. The relief claimed were basically the same as were claimed in the arbitration proceedings. The said writ petition had since been dismissed. Since the earlier writ petition had been dismissed thereforee the principles of rest judicata would apply. It has further been alleged that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to go into the legality of the agreement, which is outside the scope of the reference. The award otherwise is a...

Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The impugned transfer order dated 14.8.2001 by which the applicant, who is a Laskar (a Group 'D' post) has been shifted from RCPD to FCO within the city of Delhi has generated considerable controversy in view of the fact that he is a trade unionist, currently General Secretary of Radar and Communication Project Depot Group C & D Employees Union (hereinafter R & C Union), and in that capacity, has been assisting the fellow employees in settling their disputes with the respondent-authority. As stated, the new place of applicant's posting is also in Delhi, reportedly some 3 KMs away from his old place of posting and incidentally also located at about the same distance from his residence.2. On 21.8.2001, when the case was first heard, an ad-interim order was passed directing the respondents to maintain status quo as also to permit the applicant to discharge his duties at the RCPD which is his old place of posting. Accordingly, the applicant continues to work at RCPD. The applic...

Birbal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 97(2002)DLT96; 2002(62)DRJ185

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has mprayed for a direction to the respondents to grant mto the petitioner service pension form the date of mhis discharge from the Army after quashing the morders dated 7th March, 1991 and 1st August, 1997. m2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian mArmy as a Sepoy. While serving in the Indian Army, mthe petitioner was declared a deserter for a period mof 797 days that is with effect from 21st mSeptember, 1965 to 26th November, 1967. The mpetitioner finally retired from service on 19th mJune, 1972. A claim was made by the petitioner to mthe effect that while computing the total length of mservice of the petitioner, his entire period of mservice should be reckoned including the period mduring which he was declared a deserted that is, mwith effect from 21st September, 1965 to 26th mNovember, 1967. m3. It is an accepted position that in case mthe aforesaid period is computed towards the total mand actual length of service...