Delhi Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2003]259ITR248(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The question which has been raised in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is the interpretation of 'royalty' as envisaged under Explanationn 2 appended to Section 9(1) of the Act. By reason of this Explanationn which provides that the income specified therein shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India specifies six items which would come within the scope thereof. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have arrived at a finding of fact that by reason of the agreement entered into by and between the assessed and the transferee, no royalty could become chargeable. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant, has in support of this appeal, however, submitted that design is one of the components which has been transferred together with engineering, manufacturing, shop testing, packing up to f. o. b. port of embarkation for a consideration of Rs. 4,74,000 and thus...
Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN181(Delhi)
The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the purported question of law as specified in the memo of appeal as also the various documents filed therein. The learned counsel upon a query could only state that the substantial question of law which may arise for consideration of this court would be as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse insofar as it fails to take into consideration the relevant facts and based its decision on irrelevant factors not germane for the purpose of passing the said order. We have, as noticed above, been taken through various documents including the extracts from books of account. To us it appears that the findings recorded by the Commissioner as also the Tribunal are pure findings of fact. Appreciation of evidence does not fall within the realm of this Court's jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had on earlier occasion remitted the matter for reassessment. The Commissioner in such reasses...
Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2004]139TAXMAN313(Delhi)
Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the purported question of law as specified in the memo of appeal as also the various documents filed therein. Learned counsel upon a query could only state that the substantial question of law which may arise for consideration of this court would be as to whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in so far as it fails to take into consideration the relevant facts and based its decision on irrelevant factors not germane to the purpose of passing the said order. We have, as noticed above, been taken through various documents including the extracts from books of account. To us it appears that the findings recorded by the Commissioner as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are pure findings of fact. Appreciation of evidence does not fall within the realm of this courts jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had on earlier, occasion remitted the matter ...
Caterpillar Inc. Vs. Kailash Nichani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)894; 97(2002)DLT304; 2002(24)PTC405(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The aforesaid three IAs filed in the suit are being disposed of by this common order. Facts which are necessary for disposal of these IAs only are stated :-The instant suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyright, passing of, damages and delivery up, etc. Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A. It is having its principal place of business at Illinois, U.S.A. It is the proprietor of the trade mark CATERPILLAR and CAT. The plaintiff claims that the CATERPILLAR trade mark was first used in the U.S.A. in 1904 by Benjamin Holt and registered as Reg. No. 79056 in the U.S.A. in 1910. This registration is still valid and subsisting. Caterpillar Tractor Co. was incorporated in California, U.S.A. in 1925 by the merger of two predecessor companies, i.e., Holt and Best. In 1986, Caterpillar Tractor Co. changed its name to Caterpillar Inc. Since incorporation in 1925, the mark/name CATE...
R.S. Bakshi and anr. Vs. H.K. Malhari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)589; 2002(62)DRJ272; 2002RLR172
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The reference to a Division Bench has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court noticing conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court in D.N. Sood v. Shanti Devi : (1997)10SCC428 and Vinod Kumar Chaudhary v. Smt. Narain Devi, : [1980]2SCR746 .2. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners herein questioning the order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the second respondent whereby and whereunder an application of the first respondent herein seeking leave to defend was allowed.3. Before the learned Single Judge a question arose as to whether an application under Article 226 would be maintainable.4. Learned Single Judge noticed that a Division Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court in D.N. Sood's case (supra) considered the question as to whether a revision petition would lie against an order granting leave under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a sim...
Cit Vs. Mitsui Engg. and Ship Building
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)66
S.B. Sinha, C.J.The question which has been raised in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the interpretation of 'royalty' as envisaged under Explanationn 2 appended to section 9(1) of the Act. By a reason of this Explanationn which provides that the income specified therein shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India specifies six items which would come within the scope thereof. The Commissioner (Appeals) as also Tribunal have arrived at a finding of fact that by a reason of the agreement entered into by and between the assessed and the transferee, no royalty could become chargeable. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant has in support of this appeal, however, submitted that design is one of the components which has been transferred together with engineering, manufacturing, shop-testing, packing up to FQB port of embarkation for a consideration of Rs. 4,74,000 and thus the same could come within the purview of one ...
Dr. Prannoy Roy and anr. Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)465
S.B. Sinha, C.J.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 year 1995-96 for which the return was due to be filed on 31-10-1995. However, taxes due were paid on 25-9-1995, i.e., before the due date of filing of the return, but the return was filed on 29-9-1996, i.e., after a delay of about 11 months. Though returned income was accepted on 29-1-1998, yet interest has been charged under the provisions of section 234A on the ground that tax paid on 25-9-1995, cannot be reduced from the tax due on assessment. The assessed filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Act on 9-11-1998, before the Administrative Commissioner requesting to delete interest charged under section 234A of the Act. The Commissioner in his order dated 9-3-1999, upheld the action of the assessing officer st...
Cit Vs. Motor General Finance Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)123
S.B. Sinha, C.J.The substantial question of law, which has been raised in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') rotates around the question as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made on account of interest-free loan/advance of Rs. 47,67,740 given by the assessed to a sister concern.2. The relevant fact of the matter, in a nutshell, is as followsThe assessed, namely, M/s Motor General Finance Ltd. filed its return of income on 26-12-1990, declaring income under section 115J of the Act at Rs. 1,74,88,930. The assessing officer noticed that the assessed had advanced interest-free loan/advance of Rs. 47,67,740 during the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1990-91 to its sister concern, namely, M/s National Air Products Ltd. The said transaction increased the total interest-free loan/advance given to its sister concern from Rs. 154...
Cit Vs. Dr. R.L. Bhargava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)50
S.B. Sinha, C.J.The following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Tribunal in terms of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs is not taxable in the assesses hands being a capital receipt ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a part of the sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs is in any case taxable as revenue receipt ?'2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.FactsThe assessed is a well-known paper technologist. During this year, he entered into an agreement with Regal Papers Ltd., for transfer of complete technology which included technical know-how, process and secret formulae for manufacture of high gloss cast-coated papers and boards. For this, he received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 from M/s. Regal Papers Ltd. The assessed contended that the amount was not taxable as being capital expenditure (sic-re...
Bishan Lal Kanodia Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)496
S.B. Sinha, C.J.Reference to this court has been made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), for its opinion in relation to the following questions :'1. Whether, on a proper construction of the deed of dissolution could it be held that it was a case of retirement of the partner and not of the dissolution of the firm ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the excess of Rs. 3,62,631 received by the partner on the dissolution of the firm could be subject to assessment as income under the head 'Capital gain''?2. The brief relevant facts are as under :The assessed was one of the partners in M/s. Jyoti Prasad Jagan Nath. The other two partners were Mr. Mukut Behari and Mrs. Mathri Devi. The said firm was claimed to have been dissolved by a deed dated 19-5-1975, when the assessed went out of the partnership business while the other two partners took over the continuing business. The assessed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »