Delhi Court May 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.
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)325; [2002]254ITR240(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the levy of penalty for concealment was correct?' 2. In short the factual position as emerges from the statement of case is as follows : The assessed had returned his total income of Rs. 9,000 for the assessment , year in question, i.e., 1973-74, and the assessment was completed at Rs. 20,100. A sum of Rs. 10,000 which was shown as cash credit from his wife, Smt. Prabha Kumari, was not accepted as a genuine loan and was treated as the assessed's income from undisclosed sources. The addition was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (in short 'the AAC'), and before th...
Narendra Bahadur Lama Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1005; 92(2001)DLT113
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Lund up Tamang, (hereinafter referred to as detenu) challenging the order of detention passed by Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the L.G.) in purported exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, and also preventing him from transporting and selling smuggled goods, in future. At the relevant point of time, the detenu was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.2. Case of the detenu in a nutshell is as follows:Petitioner-detenu is a foreign national residing in Nepal. He had come to India in connection with his business. He was arrested by the DRI officials on the allegations on being in illicit possession of US$ 37500, equivalent Rs.16,08,750/- in Indian currency found in the checked in package when he wa...
Vishwant Kumar and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1089; 94(2001)DLT252; 2001(59)DRJ499
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr. Pc) is directed against the order summoning dated 22nd November, 1994 passed by Sh.D. S. Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judges holding that sufficient material available on record to summon the petitioner in case FIR No. 129/93 u/s 308/34 IPC PS Vasant Vihar.2. Admit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.3. Brief facts are : On the basis of report lodged by Ranbir Viranjia above noted case was registered. after investigations challan was filed. In the Challan petitioner was not arrayed as an accused; Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter to the court of Sessions Court for trial and the Sessions Court vide impugned orders dated 22-11-1994 without recording of any evidence summoned the petitioner holding that there is sufficient evidence and material against them, which has been challenged....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)432; 93(2001)DLT245; 2001(59)DRJ641
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for 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 'B' (in short, the Tribunal)''Whether ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that payment of sitting fee to Directors could not be considered in computing disallowance under Section 40(C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?Dispute relates to the assessment year 1978-79.2. Brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. assessed a public limited company, filed its return of income under the Act. During the assessment year, the assessing officer noticed, certain payment had been made to the Directors as sitting fees. He was of the view that payment attracted Section 40(c) of the Act, and made additions accordingly assessed preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals (in short, CITA). The said authority upheld the addition....
JaIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)957
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 33,80,316/- invoking the provisions of order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is filed on the basis of cheque No. 784051 dated 1st September, 1994 for Rs. 50 lacs issued by the defendant No.2 in favor of the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff in the last days of February/beginning of March, 1994 the plaintiff for advancing a loan of Rs. 50 lacs with the assurance that same would be repaid within six month. He even issued two post dated cheques i.e. one cheque No. 784051 for Rs. 50 lacs and another cheque No. 784052 dated 1st September, 1995 for Rs. 4,50,000/- covering interest for a period of six months calculated at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. However, since the plaintiff was apprehensive that the cheque may not be encased on presentation, he refused to advance the loan. The def...
M/S Punj Star Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Atna Investment Pvt. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1029
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This application is preferred by the plaintiff under Order XI Rules 12, 13 and 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has made the prayer in this application to the effect that defendants be directed to discover on oath and produce the documents on record, as mentioned in para 7 of the application, which are in their power and possession.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.58,59,071.80 paisa. Allegations in the plaint are that at relevant time defendants 2 and 3 were at the helm of affairs of the plaintiff company in the capacity of Director and Managing Director respectively. They divested a huge sum of Rs. 38,55,000/- as advance to the defendant No.1 which is a family concern/company of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.3 even acknowledged the liability of the aforesaid amount on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 vide memorandum dated 23rd January, 1990 addressed to Shri S.C.Mathur, who is the aud...
Union Bank of India Vs. Sonywell Electronics and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi386; 94(2001)DLT273; 2001(60)DRJ427
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Plaintiff is a statutory banking company constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,69,670.32 against five defendants. the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm of which defendants No.1 is a partnership. Defendants 4 and 5 are stated to be the guarantors. The suit is being contested by the defendant No.2 only. It already stands decreed against defendants 1 and 3 to 5. In fact suit was filed by the plaintiff bank under the provisions of Order xxxvII of Code of Civil Procedure. Only defendant No. 2 had filed application for leave to defend. There was no appearance entered on behalf of defendants 1 and 3 to 5 and for this reason suit was decreed against defendants 1 and 3 to 5 by judgment and decree dated December 5,1988. On an application for leave to defined filed by defendant No.2 order dated April 3,1991 was passed granting limited leave to defend. This was an agreed order which r...
Shri Suraj Prakash Sharma Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Rani Dewan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT530
ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad-interim ex-parte injunction and injunction till the decision of the suit.The plaintiff has filed this Suit for declaration to the effect that an Eviction Decree dated 25th September, 1999 passed in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff by Mrs. R. Kiran Nath, as Rent Controller in Eviction Case no..21/94 be declared as a nullity. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the defendant had field the aforesaid Suit for eviction against the plaintiff who was tenant in the Suit property. The Suit was filed on the basis of Agreement dated 26th March, 1993 as per which Shri Sheetal Prasad Diwan had given maintenance right to the defendant and the right to recover rent from the tenant in respect of the Suit premises. During the pendency of the said Eviction Petition, the plaintiff allegedly entered into A...
New Bank of India Vs. M/S. Marvels (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT558
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This Suit was filed by the plaintiff-Bank for recovery of money against the defendants, who are five in numbers, in the year 1985. The defendants 1, 2 and 5 after service of summons, did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. The defendants 3 and 4 although appeared initially and contested the Suit, stopped appearing after a particular period. They were also proceeded ex-parte decree was passed on 3rd December, 1997. However, the plaintiff has not bee able to enjoy the fruits of this decree and even after 16 years of the filing of the Suit the matter is kept alive by the defendants 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the applicants, for short) as to the present application has been filed under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 3rd October, 1997.2. Obviously, the question to be determined in this application is as to whether there is sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicants in...
Cit Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR846(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.Heard. 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').'Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that payment of sitting fee to directors could not be considered in computing disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1978-79.A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. The assessed, a public limited company, filed its return of income under the Act. During the assessment year, the assessing officer noticed that certain payments had been made to the directors as sitting fees. He was of the view that the payment attracted section 40(c) of the Act, and made additions, accordingly. The assessed preferred appeal bef...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »