Delhi Court April 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.
Shri Arun Sondhi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: I(2001)ACC615; 2001ACJ1779; 2001IVAD(Delhi)133; 91(2001)DLT17
ORDERKhan, J.1. Appellant, Arun Sondhi, 21, a B.A. Final year student in St. Stephens College, Delhi was seriously injured in road accident on 4.3.1983 when his cycle was hit by a DTC bus. His one leg was amputated and the other paralysed. He became paraplegic because of multiple injuries received by him and his permanent disability was assessed at 100%. He filed Claim suit No. 127/83 and claimed a compensation of Rs. 35 lacs. Respondent contested this amongst others on the ground that no DTC bus was involved in the accident. Tribunal rejected respondent's stand on this and estimated his feature earning at Rs.2000/- a month and applied a multiplier of 16 to it to assess the loss of his earning at Rs.3.84 lacs. It also awarded Rs. 1 lac for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, Rs. 2.25 lacs or so for medical treatment at Sweden and here, Rs.10,000/- for conveyance and Rs. 4,375/- for special diet and awarded total compensation of Rs.7.20 lacs with 12% interest...
Ramesh Chander Vs. Smt. Geeta Madhok and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)263; 92(2001)DLT349; 2001(59)DRJ371
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this petition assails the order dated 1.11.1996, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's appeal bearing RCA No. 176/96. The said appeal had been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.2.1996, passed by the Additional Rent Control dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 7 & 11 CPC read with Section 112 and 113 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 151 CPC, moved for dismissal of the eviction petition. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition may be briefly noted. 3. Smt. Bimla Rani, the predecessor in interest of the respondents in the present petition, filed an eviction petitioner under Section 14(1) (a & j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The said eviction petition was being defended by the petitioner on numerous grounds and pleas. During the pendency of the petition the respondents Smt. Geeta Madhok and Mr. Neeraj Madhok moved an application under Order...
Sh. Krishan Madan and Another Vs. Deptt. of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)252; 92(2001)DLT129; 2001(59)DRJ476; 2001(76)ECC136; 2002(140)ELT52(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short `Act'). The application relates to order in Misc. Case No.M/181/99-MB(DB) in Appeal No.C/609/93-NB, decided by the North Bench of the Custom, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') on 10th November 1994. Originally an application was filed before the Tribunal seeking reference of certain question, stated to be questions of law. The same was dismissed.The Court was moved in Customs Act Case No. 1 of 1996.By order dated 2nd September 1996, it was observed that out of the four questions proposed, no question of law was involved as regards three of them. So far as residual one is concerned, it was held that the same was a new question which cannot be raised for the first time. Thereafter an application was filed under section 129B(2) of the Act before the Tribunal seeking rectification of certain purported mistakes in the order of the Tribunal. By impugned ord...
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Banking Service Recruitment Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1267Del
ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. An advertisement was issued by the respondent Board for recruitment to various posts including the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra. It was stated in the advertisement that the total number of vacancies for the post of Probationary Officer was 100. A note was also appended to the advertisement which stated that the number of vacancies including the reserved vacancies mentioned in the advertisement were merely provisional and may vary according to the actual requirement of the banks. The said advertisement was issued by the respondent pursuant to the indents placed by the Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra on the respondent Board that they proposed to appoint 50 Probationary Officers each in their banks. The details of the proposed vacancies were also mentioned in the said advertisement which was issued pursuant to the indents placed by the said two banks.2. In response to the aforesaid advertisement a number o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. East West Linkers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)294; [2001]250ITR83(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C ('the Tribunal', in short) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed was an industrial undertaking in terms of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus entitled to the deduction under that section ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.3. In a nut-shell, the factual position is as follows :The assessed is a private limited company carrying on business in manufacturing and export of garments, etc. The assessed claimed that it was a newly established industrial undertaking, and that its manufacturing unit had started functioning during the assessment year in question and, thereforee, it was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Act. T...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Greevees Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Del)80; [2003]264ITR347(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') by the Income-tax Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') :--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 1,08,364 ?'The dispute relates to the asst. yr, 1976-77.2. Factual position needs to be noted in brief, as factual controversy has very little role to play in the adjudication of the case.assessed a private limited company filed its return of income on 27th Dec., 1976, showing a loss of Rs. 80,921. Revised return was filed on 5th Sept., 1977, showing loss of Rs. 1,38,258. Though the total loss was determined at Rs. 1,08,364, benefit of carry forward and set off against the assessments to follow was not granted on the ground that the return was not filed under Section 139(3) of the Act. assessed preferred appeal before the AAC, who he...
Indian National Congress Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)857
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.:These are cross-appeals by the assessed and the revenue in respect of assessment year 1994-95. The assessed is an all India political party. It filed returns for the assessment years 199194 to 1995-96 on 14-2-1996 declaring nil income claiming exemption under section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer issued notice under sections 143(2) and 142(l) in respect of assessment year covered under the present appeal calling for completion of accounts and details vide letter dated 25-9-1996. There was no compliance, though promise was given for compliance later. The assessing officer issued show-cause on 29-1-1997, informing that if the assessed failed to furnish the required accounts, details, etc. by 16-2-1997, assessment would be completed on material available on record. On 25-3-1997, copies of income and expenditure accounts of 14 State units were filed. Copies of accounts of remaining State units were not filed even till 31-3-1997. TN) assessi...
Cit Vs. Medipac (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN130(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and section 273 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are pari materia and the burden of proving that the estimate of advance tax as filed by the assessed was false to its knowledge lay on the department ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that revenue had to produce some material to show that assessed had in this year earned income of Rs. 1 lakh although the assessed itself had disclosed it under the V.D. Scheme in respect of this year ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of th...
A.M. Trading Company Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: [2003]131STC264(Delhi)
Arrijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an application questioning correctness of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (in short 'the Additional Commissioner') and the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax (in short 'the Tribunal').2. The dispute relates to demands raised under the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 1992-93 for the petitioner's failure to produce declaration forms in respect of claim of sales to registered dealers. A total demand of Rs. 6,35,292 was raised. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who by order dated May 9, 1997 directed deposit of the entire extra demand as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the said order, which was dismissed by its order dated September 18, 1997. However, the appellant was directed to comply with the order by October 16, 1997 and to appear on October 17, 1997 for hearing of the ...
Cit Vs. Greevees Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN668(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-B Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 1,08,364 ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.2. Factual position needs to be noted in brief, as factual controversy has very little role to play in the adjudication of the case.assessed a private limited company filed its return of income on 27-12-1976 showing a loss of Rs. 80,921. Revised return was filed on 5-9-1977 showing loss of Rs. 1,38,258. Though the total loss was determined at Rs. 1,08,364, benefit of carry forward and set off against the assessments to follow was not granted on the ground that the return was not filed under section 139(3) of the Act. assessed preferred appeal befo...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »