Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2001 Page 3 of about 141 results (0.021 seconds)Raja Mechanical Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)621; 2002(82)ECC607; 2002(144)ELT36(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This appeal under Section 268-A of the Income-tax Act has been filed,raising the following questions of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case:- 1. Tribunal is correct in holding that two pleasmentioned in Ground 2 and Grounds 5 to 9 in theApplicants appeal before it were not pressed by theApplicant (Para 6 & 7 of the Tribunal's orderM/80/01/NB(SM).) 2. Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) shouldbe treated to have been filed in time treating the date16/12/97 as the date of filing the same as it was filedin the office of the Assistant Commissioner CentralExcise, Div-V: an officer sub-ordinate toCommissioner (Appeals) in so far as appeals areconcerned - on that date. (Para 2 of Tribunals finalorder No. A/2180/00-NB(SM) dt. 17/10/2000). 3. The question on merits regarding correctness ofavailing the modvat credit on capital goods by theapplicant was validly before the Tribunal, on thebasis of the doctrine of merger, and the Tribunal wasduty bound to ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Modi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)484; 96(2002)DLT206; 2002(144)ELT59(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether the Chairman of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is personally liable to pay Inland Air Travel Tax (in short, the 'IATT') is the question involved in this writ petition?The basic of the matter is not in dispute.2. The petitioner herein was the Chairman of ModiLuft. ModiLuft is a 'carrier' within the meaning of Section 41(c) of the Finance Act, 1989 (M/F). It paid IATT till February 1996. Thereafter no tax, however, was paid or paid within the specified period. Six show-cause notices have been issued to the Company by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs relating to the period March, 1996 to August, 1996. On or about 14.11.1996, a detention memo in respect of a Boeing 737 aircraft was issued for not depositing a sum of Rs. 10,40,90,255/- on the ground that the carrier has failed to observe Inland Air Travel Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'IATT Rules'). The aircraft was detained in terms of Rule 14(4) of the IATT Rules as 'belonging to...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ400
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. CM 10479/99 has been filed in CW 3723/97 wherein the following reliefs have been prayed for:'In the premises aforesaid the petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :-(a) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to take necessary steps forthwith to regulate admissions in the recognized unaided private schools in Delhi in order to avoid and to check demands of illegal money in the name of the donation by the schools at the time of admission ; (b) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents-government to frame a policy or to make necessary amendments in the law regulating recognition and conditions thereof including admission and payment of fee etc. of the recognized unaided private schools at pre-primary stage ; (c) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents-government to constitute forthwith Delhi School Education Advisory Board as required under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dalmia Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)734; 96(2002)DLT441; 2002(62)DRJ1; 2002RLR309
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. A Division Bench by order dated 19th December 2000 referred threequestions before this court, having regard to the fact that interpretation of variousprovisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are involved, observed as under: 'It was easy for us to follow suit by embarking on afactual enquiry on the nature of disputed construction butthat would still leave some questions unanswered and thecontroversy raging. We would have also attempted toexamine these questions on our own but considering theirwider ramifications and general public importance involvinginterpretation of various provisions of DMCA and otherrelated enactment we deem it appropriate to refer these to alarger Bench for authoritative pronouncement. In our viewfollowing questions warranting reference to a larger Bencharise:- (1) what is the area of operation of Sections 312and 313 of DMCA and do these exclude building complexwhich may otherwise need access and amenities fromwithin. What could be a defin...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central), New Delhi Vs. Sitaram ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)516; 96(2002)DLT399; [2002]254ITR476(Delhi)
ORDERLimitation--Issue of second draft assessment order within period of limitationCatch Note:Assessing officer sent draft assessment order to IAC for treating capital gains as long-term capital gains--However, he sent second draft assessment order within period of limitation--Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed order of assessing officer but Tribunal reversed same--Same not justified--More than one draft assessment order could be issued by the assessing officer, and thereforee, there was no illegality in the action of the assessing officer in passing two draft assessment orders.Ratio:More than one draft assessment order could be issued by the assessing officer, and thereforee, there was no illegality in the action of the assessing officer in passing two draft assessment orders as the second draft assessment order also was well within limitation period.Held:It is beyond doubt whatsoever that section 143 of the Act is a procedural provision, as thereby tax is not charged. Section 143 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Prannoy Roy and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)569; 96(2002)DLT269; [2002]254ITR755(Delhi)
S.B Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 234A of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is in question in this writ petition.2. The brief facts are as under:-The petitioners earned substantial capital gains for the assessment year1995-96 for which the return was due to be filed on 31.10.1995. However, taxes duewere paid on 25.09.1995, i.e, before the due date of filing of the return, but he returnwas field on 29.09.1996, i.e., after a delay of about 11 months. Though returned incomewas accepted on 29.01.1998, yet interest has been charged under the provisions ofSection 234A on the ground that tax paid on 25.09.1995 cannot be reduced from the taxdue on assessment. The assessed filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Acton 09.11.1998 before the Administrative Commissioner requesting to delete interestcharged under Section 234 of the Act. The Commissioner in his order dated 09.03.1999upheld the action of the Assessing Officer stating...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Singh Gurcharan Singh (Huf) Vs. A.C.i.T, N.A. Circle, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)673; 62(2002)DLT307; [2002]254ITR645(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. In this application under Section 151 CPC. a prayer has been made forrectifying a mistake stated to have occurred in the Order dated 08.10.2001. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant is aHUF. According to the appellant as its income for the assessment year 1989-90 wasbelow taxable limit, it did not file any return under Section 139(1) or Section 139(2) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'). However, in relation to certain receiptsthe assessment proceedings were reopened by the assessing officer in terms of Sections147 and 148 of the Act. The said assessment proceedings were allegedly initiated afterthe expiry of 4 years from the date of assessment. The assessment proceeding relating tothe said assessment year were completed on 12.01.1993 by determining a total income ofRs. 2,98,800/-, as having been derived from capital gains. An appeal there-against wasfiled by the appellant herein and by order dated 02.03.1994, the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)757; AIR2002Delhi281; [2002]111CompCas349(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the Institute, for short) has made this reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) in respect of Shri Mahesh Taneja, FCA with the prayer that this Court may pass necessary orders in accordance with Section 21(6) of the Act.2. Facts giving rise to the making of the reference are as follows:-A complaint dated 27th February, 1991 was filed by Mrs. Sushma Shourie in which the allegations were made to the following effect : (1) the respondent had failed to appear before the Income Tax Officer in response to the notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 1988-89. Resultantly, assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144, at a total income of Rs. 2,57,361/- as against declared income of Rs. 41,170/-. (2) The respondent even failed to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ...
Tag this Judgment!Super Bazar Cooperative Stores Ltd. Vs. the Court of the Estate Office ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT189; 2002(62)DRJ77
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as towhether the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short, AIIMS) requires anylicense for running a medical store.2. The appellant herein was having an outlet for selling drugs/medicinesto general public within the premises of AIIMS. AIIMS granted license to theappellant to run the aforesaid outlet. The AIIMS withdrew this license and bycommunication dated July, 1997 asked the appellant to vacate the premises for the with.As the appellant did not vacate the premises, action was initiated under the provisionsof the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and an evictionorder was passed. Against the eviction order the appellant preferred an appeal whichwas dismissed by the Addl District Judge vide order dated 18th July, 2001.3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant herein filed a writ petition No.4800/2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17th August, 2001. Upon hisfiling...
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Gaur and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)617
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The case relates to admission to the BridgeCourse conducted by Respondent No. 4, namely, YMCAInstitute of Engineering (hereinafter to be called as'YMCA Institute' for short), after being approved byRespondent No. 2 i.e. All Indian Council forTechnical Education (hereinafter to be called as'AICTE' for short). Two sets of students are stakingtheir claims for admission to this course; one groupconsists of those students who passed the Post DiplomaCourse/Advance Diploma Course in the years 1995-96 and1996-97 (hereinafter to be called as 'first category'for short) and the other group represents thosestudents who passed their Post Graduate Diploma Coursein the academic year prior to 1995-96 (hereinafter tobe referred to as 'second category'). The chequeredhistory of these cases is stated in substantial detailsby the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgmentdated 30.10.2001 and, thereforee, it would not benecessary to repeat the same. However, the factsessential for dispo...
Tag this Judgment!