Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-iv, New Delhi Vs. Shri Saliq Ram ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)367; (2001)168CTR(Del)412; 91(2001)DLT137; [2001]249ITR716(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi ( in short, 'the Tribunal') under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the 'Act'):-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 144B(1) are not applicable in the present case even though the income proposed by the I.T.O. to be taxed exceeded by over Rs.1 lac the income returned by the assessed?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.2. Factual position, as indicated in the Statement of the Case, is as follows:-assessed is an individual, who derived income from two house properties, from proprietorship business run in the name of M/s. S.R. Associates and share income from a partnership firm M/s United Traders Return of income for the assessment year was filed on 11.07.1976. assessed declared his ...

K.L. Rathee Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)178; 90(2001)DLT170; 2001(58)DRJ54; 2001RLR255

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J1.This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th October, 1994.2. The appellant sought quashing of the notice dated 30th March, 1992 issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') proposing amendment to the assessment list in respect of his property A-9/32, Vasant Vihar for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The learned Single Judge found the notice as inoperative and incapable of being acted upon, subject, to the issuance of a proper notice giving adequate reasons for the proposal to enhance the rateable value.3. The appellant, who appears in person, has advanced several contentions before us in support of his appeal. We do not propose to deal with each one of his contentions as the appeal can be disposed of on a short point viz. the notice claimed to have been issued by the concerned authority and alleged to have been served on the appellant was not...

Shri Ashok Kumar Ratra Vs. Smt. Simi Katyal and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)506; 91(2001)DLT82

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the defendants against the order passed on 16.8.2000 by learned Single Judge on the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the C.P.C.'). By the impugned order ex parte ad interim order of injunction was confirmed subject to the condition of the plaintiff depositing in Court within six weeks the entire balance consideration of Rs. 23.00.000/-.2. Facts in brief are that on 7.8.1996 the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for specific performance of agreement by directing the defendants to execute necessary transfer documents in her favor, pursuant to the agreement, which had been entered into between the plaintiff and late Shri Nanak Chand. Decree has been claimed, inter alia, alleging that on 6.5.1995 an agreement was entered into between her and late Shri Nanak Chand by which Nanak Chand had agreed to transfer property No. A-67, Saraswati Vih...

Ajit Srimal Vs. the State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)645; 90(2001)DLT492; 2001(58)DRJ113

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders dated 15.11.2000 and 9.12.2000 passed by learned trial Court directing the petitioner not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court and thereafter allowing his application for going abroad subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs.2 lacs.2. The petitioner is facing a trial before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is true that under the orders of the High Court, trial of the complaint case has to be expedited, but in such like cases where identity of an accused is not in dispute, the trial can be conducted in the presence of a duly authorised counsel also after exempting an accused from personal attendance on the basis of a properly moved application. However, the fact remains that the petitioner, who is involved in a bailable offence only, has no sufficient reasons to flee from justice ...

Sushil Ansal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]254ITR42(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN84(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two reference applications are interlinked. Both the assessed and the Revenue moved for references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B ('the Tribunal' in short), referred the following question at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,423 ?'2. At the instance of the assessed, three questions have been referred, which ran as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was not entitled to vacancy allowance for the period April 1, 1972, to October, 1972, in respect of the portions which had not been let out rill October, 1972, following the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Liquidator of Mahamudabad Properties P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1980]...

J.P. Sharma Vs. State Bank of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR591]; (2002)IVLLJ887Del

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Jaipur. The said order is challenged on the ground that the said order is issued in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent and that the said order is malafide.2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the various averments made in the writ petition particularly, to paragraphs XIV, XV and XVI of the writ petition in support of his contention that the impugned order was issued in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent bank and that the same is malafide. In order to prove malafide definite and specific pleadings are to be given in the writ petition to show how the order is malafide. Contents of the aforesaid paragraphs are vague and do not make out any case of malafide action on the part of the respondents. thereforee, the only question that is to be examined in this case is whether the impugne...

Columbia Pictures Asson Vs. Siti Cable Network

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ1

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The matter was called out once. A pass over was taken. The matter was called for second time. Again a pass over was prayed for. The matter was taken up for the third time'. Counsel for the plaintiff prays for another pass over, I am not inclined to give any further accommodation to the counsel. I proceed to hear the matter.2. Heard.3. The applicant by way of this application seeks rejection of the plaint on the short ground that an advocate is hot entitled to act in a professional capacity as well as a constitutional attorney of the party in the same matter or same cause. It is contended that Ms. Dahlia Sen Oberoi, Advocate working for the firm Lall and Sethi was constituted attorney of the plaintiff and in that capacity signed the plaint and represented the plaintiff.4. The plaintiff is represented by a firm of lawyers known as Lall and Seth. If Vakalatnama is executed by a client in favor of firm of advocates, it follows that the partners and advocates working for ...

Cit Vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Del)78

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These two reference applications are interlinked as they relate to the same order of the Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-C (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) dated 23-2-1981, in ITA No. 5039 (Del)/1979. Tribunal has referred the following questions for opinion of this Court, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act)At the instance of assessed'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,00,500 on account of fees paid by the assessed to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Delhi, for increasing the authorised share capital of the company was a capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure ?'At the instance of revenue'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed is entitled to amortisation of expenditure fee as a result of increase in the share capital unde...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Citizen Chemical Transport Co.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The above mentioned five appeals arise out of a common order dated 12.1.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case Nos. 889/1997, 890/1997, 891/1997, 892/1997 and 893/1997, all entitled United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. v. M/s. Citizen Chemical and Transport Company. 2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in the above mentioned appeals the same with the consent of the parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating therein that in each case M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, Hazira, had booked consignment, containing MEG, with the respondent for carriage from Hazira to Gulaothi. The said consignment was insured with appellant No. 1-United India Insurance Company Limited and the consignee of the said co...

Sidharth Petro Products Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT782TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Siddharth Petro Products, the issue involved is whether the modvat credit was eligible to them on the strength of invoices which were not in prescribed colour code.2. MS. Shruti Chaudhary, Ld. Advocate, submitted, that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 152/97, dt. 4-12-97 disallowed them modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs as they had received the inputs during the month of August and September 1995 under invoices which were not having prescribed colour i.e. pink as required under Notification No. 23/95 dt. 3-5-95; that the Commissioner (Appeal) also rejected their appeal by relying on the decision in the cast of Suraj Foundary Vs. CCE Allahabad 1999 (114) ELT 559. The 1d. Advocate, further, submitted that there are catena of judgements on the issue of procedural/technical lapses in which it has been held that when inputs had been received which have suffered duty and were used in manufacture of final products and no fraud is s...