Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments

Cit Vs. Pushpak Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)172CTR(Del)172

S.B. Sinha, C.J.The appellant herein has filed appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 19-12-2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 231 & 232/Del/1994 and ITA Nos. 141 & 142/Del/1994 for the assessment year 1981-82 and 1982-83.The appellant has sought to raise the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this court.'(a) Whether the Tribunal exceeded, its jurisdiction in deciding issue of limitation not raised by the assessed-firm in appeal ?(b) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in annulling the reassessment orders framed by the assessing officer for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 ?(c) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that on the facts of the case of the present assessed, the case will be falling under section 147(b) and not under section 147(a) ?(d) Whether the Tribu...

Chiranji Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)449

By the CourtThe petitioner filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26-11-1993, passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the necessary permission for sale of property bearing plot No. 3, Block-A, East of Kailash, New Delhi, under the provisions of section 269UD of the Income Tax Act was declined to the petitioner and an order of pre-emptive purchase was made by the respondents.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 28-8-1993, with the respondent No. 3, the petitioner being the vendee and the respondent No. 3 being the vendor. The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 applied for issuance of 'No objection certificate' in respect of the above-mentioned property from the respondent No, 2, The respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 26-11-1993, while declining to grant permission for sale, passed preemptory purchase order in respect of the property,3. The petitioner filed the present petition which was allowed vide order dated 17-12-1997 (reported as Mrs. Kailash...

Classic Air Conditioners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Pawan Kumar JaIn and Anothe ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. By this order we shall dispose of application dated 5.1.2001, filed by the appellant/applicant. It is stated in the application that the above mentioned appeal was filed by the appellant against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the payment was received by respondent No. 2 from respondent No. 1 and that the appellant was not liable to make any payment to respondent No. 1. During the proceedings before this Commission, respondent No. 2 admitted its liability and undertook to make payment to respondent No. 1 by 5.1.2001. It is also stated that respondent No. 2 had made part payment of Rs. 15,000/- on last date of hearing before this Commission and that the case was listed for 5.1.2001 for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to report payment of full and final payment. That on 5.1.2001, Counsel for the appellant was on the way to this Commission but got delayed due to starting problems of his car. By the time, Counsel for the appellant reached this Commission, it wa...

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT61

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979. The application of the petitioner is bearing the Seriall No. 2057 and registration No. 45131. Petitioner in due course was issued an allotment-cum-demand letter dated 11/13.11.1987. By the said allotment letter Flat No. 120-A, Group-I, Dilshad Garden was allotted to the petitioner on cash down basis vide the aforesaid allotment-cum-demand letter dated 10.4.1986.2. The petitioner claims to have duly deposited the amount of Rs. 1,07,200/- as demanded on cash down basis after adjustment of the initial deposit. Petitioner claims to have furnished the requisite documents required for taking possession of the flat vide a covering letter dated 19.2.1998. Petitioner was required in terms of the allotment-cum-demand letter to make the payment of the amount demanded on or before 11.2.1988 and the petitioner duly made the payment on 10.2.1988. Petitioner in the present writ...

Airports Authority of India Vs. S.N. Malhotra and Sons and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ883

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. By this common judgment, both the petitions, being O.M.P.No. 1 of 2000 and O.M.P.No. 2 of 2000 can conveniently be disposed together. It is not in controversy that question involved in both the above said matters are identical and, thereforee, they can be taken up together. For sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from O.M.P. No. 1 of 2000, entitled Airports Authority of India v. S.N. Malhotra & Sons and Anr.2. The Airport/Authority of India has filed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of the arbitral award.3. The work of special repairs to Terminal Building at IGI Airport, Terminal-II during 1996-97 regarding certain' renovation of a particular area had been awarded to the to the respondent M/s. S.N. Malhotra & Sons. The amount settled was negotiated at Rs. 9,01,797/-. The agreement was entered into between the parties on 18.9.1996. The work was to commence on 31.8.1996 and it had to be complet...

Express Towers (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dy. Cit and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)447

By the CourtIn this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writ of certiorari for quashing the letter No. AA/JTCIT/SLP/2001-2002/259, dated 10-7-2001 whereby petitioner herein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,50,000 plus interest @ 18 per cent from the date of receipt of the money till its deposit in the Government of India account.2. The brief facts of this case are as follows :On 21-5-1987, the respondents 5 and 6 entered into an agreement to sell for the sale of the property No. B-7/118 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 23,50,000. As per the requirement under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, the petitioners and the previous owners filed for 'No objection certificate' in Form No. 37-I to the Appropriate Authority on 27-5-1987. The Appropriate Authority passed order dated 10-7-1987, for presumptive purchase. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a civil writ petn No. 2275/87 i...

Express Towers P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Del)318; [2002]257ITR229(Delhi)

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writ of certiorari for quashing the letter No. AA/JTCIT/ SLP/2001-2002/259, dated July 10, 2001, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,50,000 plus interest at 18 per cent, from thedate of receipt of the money till its deposit in the Government of India account. 2. The brief facts of this case are as follows : On May 21, 1987, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 entered into an agreement to sell for the sale of the property No. B-7/118, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 23,50,000. As per the requirement under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, the petitioners and the previous owners filed for 'no objection certificate' in Form No. 37-I to the appropriate authority passed on May 27, 1987. The appropriate authority passed order dated July 10, 1987, for pre-emptive purchase. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a Civil ...

Bank of India Vs. Raman Malhotra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)636; [2003]115CompCas369(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Bank of India, who is the petitioner in this case, has filed this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner Bank has prayed for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors/respondents herein. The cause for filing the present petition is the alleged willful breach, disregard, violation and disobedience of the undertakings and assurances dated 24th May and 25th May, 2000 given to this court by the respondents in CWP No. 265 of 1997.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner Bank, it would be appropriate to scan through the salient facts which led to giving of the aforesaid undertakings and assurances dated 24th and 25th May, 2000:3. The respondents No. 6, namely, M/s Usha Micro Process Controls Limited, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent No. 6 company'). It...

Jagmal Singh Yadav Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 28th September, 2001, passed by District Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 817/2001, entitled Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that his Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. DL-3C-L-4773, insured with respondent Insurance Company for Rs. 2,09,314/-, met with an accident on 19th December, 1998, at about 10.45 p.m. It was stated that at the time of the accident the car was being driven by one Shri Ranbir Sharma, a friend of the appellant, and the appellant was sitting by his side. Since the car was ...

Marubeni Corporation (Liaison Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)83ITD577(Delhi)

1. These are 11 appeals by appellant-company against the orders of CIT(A), who upheld the penalties under Section 271C relating to asst.yrs. 1990-91 to 1996-97. Appeals in ITA Nos. 3581 to 3587/Del/2000 are filed by liaison office of the appellant-company for asst, yrs. 1990-91 to 1996-97 and appeals in ITA Nos. 3588 to 3591/Del/2000 are filed by the project office of the appellant-company for asst. yrs. 1993-94 to 1996-97. Facts in all these appeals are similar. However, the appeals in case of liaison office involved the question of jurisdiction of the AO. Accordingly this issue will be taken separately and the common issue in all the appeals will be discussed together in all appeals.2. The issues involved in these appeals are that no tax was deducted at source on certain amount of emoluments paid by the appellant-company to expatriate Japanese staff, who were on short-term assignment to India.The emoluments were paid in Tokyo, Japan. The Japanese staff were also paid salary in India...