Delhi Court July 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. Frick India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR428(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to development rebate on increase in the cost of asset as a result of devaluation of rupee ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1967-68.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed, a private limited company, was originally assessed by order dated March 29, 1972, in which development rebate was allowed. Subsequently, notice was given to the assessed intimating that it was not entitled to development rebate on the enhanced value due to devaluation. The assessed objected to the action for rectification. Notwithstanding the objection, the...
Cit Vs. Frick India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN371(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard.At the instance of revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to development rebate on increase in the cost of asset as a result of devaluation of rupee ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1967-68.2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows :The assessed, a private limited company, was originally assessed by order dated 29-3-1972 in which, development rebate was allowed. Subsequently, notice was given to the assessed intimating that it was not entitled to development rebate on the enhanced value due to devaluation. The assessed objected to the action for rectification. Notwithstanding the objection, the assessing officer passed an order denying the benefit of development rebate. Ma...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR302(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in ignoring Rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and holding that borrowed money should be taken into account in computing the capital employed for the purpose of Section 80J?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that in computing the 'capital employed' for the purpose of Section 80J, the average of the capital as on the first day and on the closing day of the accounting period should be taken and not the capital as on the first day of the accounting period ?'3. The disputes relate to the assessment year 1974-75. In view of the decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , the first question is answered in the negative, in f...
The Trustees of Safadar Hashmi Memorial Trust Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3689; 2001(60)DRJ208
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. By this petition under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short the Code), Notification No. F24/85/Misc.93-PO: dated 21-8-1993 passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, purported to have been issued under Section 95 of the Code is under challenge. by the notification in question posters entitled: Ram Katha in Buddhist tradition and Jain tradition displayed in the banner of the Safdar Hasmi Memorial Trust @ Sahmat were held to have been published, circulated and displayed with deliberate and malicious intention to insult or attempt to insult religious belief of a particular community and also that these posters promote or attempt to promote on the ground of religion, disharmony or feeling of enmity between different religions/communities which act is an offence punishable under Section 153-A and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). In exercise of powers conferred under Section 9591) of the Code read with Notificat...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi - Iv Vs. Shri Virender Kumar, De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT213; 2001(59)DRJ538
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Heard.At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (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 is correct in law in confirming the order of the AAC directing the ITO to take the status of the assessed as that of 'HUF' instead of 'individual' taken by the Income-tax Officer?'Dispute relates to assessment year 1975-76.2. Factual position is almost undisputed and is essentially as follows:assessed received a sum of Rs. 55,440/- as 1/4th share out of the estate of his father by inheritance in August, 1974. He filed a return of his income in the status of Hindu Undivided Family (in short 'the HUF'), declaring an income of Rs. 4,280/- as interest on this amount. Assessing Officer was of the view that as the estate left by the deceased was his...
D.K. Goel Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Kamal Sujit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3913; 93(2001)DLT40; 2001(60)DRJ282
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioners has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that complaint No. 1038/98 pending against him before a Metropolitan Magistrate be quashed and order dated 4th June, 2001 passed in Crl. R. No. 6/2001 by an Addl. Sessions Judge be set aside.2. Copy of criminal complaint which is sought to be quashed, is placed at pages 69 to 74 on the file. In this complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short the 'Act') by the respondent herein, it is, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner herein towards part payment of his liability issued cheque No. 230284 dated 16th December, 1998 for an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs drawn on Canara Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On presentation of the cheque by the respondent through Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi on 17th December, 1997 for realisation of money, same was returned back by the said branch of Canara Bank on 18th December, 1997 with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient...
M/S Fujitsu Icim Ltd. Vs. M/S Klg System Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT164; 2001(60)DRJ226
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. M/s KLG System Ltd., respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,86,060/16 against the appellant under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit arose out of a purchase order dated 2.8.1994 placed by the respondent on the appellant for supply of software including installation, commissioning and providing facility to personnel of their purchaser, FEDO. In terms of the purchase order the supply was alleged to have been made and out of the total contract amount of Rs. 26,83,012.80, after making part payments, a sum of Rs. 7,59,104/- is stated to have remained unpaid. A further claim of Rs. 76,000/- was made in the suit on account of the appellant allegedly not providing training to FEDO personnel as required in terms of the agreement between the parties and for which a bill dated 23.8.1995 was raised. Summons were taken out in prescribed form and the appellant applied for un-conditional leave to contest. the suit. Apart fro...
Commissioner of Customs (Gen) Vs. Shri Ravi Mittal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT71; 2001(59)DRJ642
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. An interesting question is raised regarding the power of this Court to condone delay in presentation of application for reference in terms of Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (in Short 'the Act'). Sub-section (1) of the said Section provides that the application has to be filed within a period of 180 days of the date upon which the concerned party is served with the notice of order passed under Section 129-B of the Act. The provision reads as follows:'130A. Application to High Court.- (1) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with the notice of an order under section 129B passed on or after the 1st day of July, 1999 ( not being the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a f...
Shri Dalbir Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT615; 2002(63)DRJ153
ORDERR.C. Chopra, J. 1. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' only) is directed against an order dated 14.11.2000 passed by Sh. Amar Singh, SDM Hauz Khas, New Delhi whereby he passed an order under Section 146(1) of the code and attached the land measuring about 40 by ad 16 bids was situated in Mouza Chattarpur, Teh. New Delhi till further orders. The petitioner, claiming to be the true owner in possession of the land in question, prays for setting aside the impugned order of attachment as well as quashing of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that respondent No. 4 herein filed a petition dated 17.9.1997 before the SDM, New Delhi under Section 145/146 of the Code praying for attachment of the property in question on the ground there was grave danger of breach of peace. In the heading of the pet...
Shri Ram Sarvariva and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ311
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is against the award of learned Additional District Jude, Delhi in Land Acquisition Case No. 216/85 dated 1.1.1988 answering reference under Section 18 of the Act and thereby determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. The claim in appeal is for further enhancement in the amount of compensation.2. A plot of land situate in village Chandrawali alias Shahdara measuring 19 bids was owned by the appellant was notified on 7.2.1984 under Section 4 of the Act for being acquired for public purpose, namely, park site in Siri Ram Nagar Colony. Urgency clause was invoked and notification under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act were also published on the same day i.e. 7.2.1984. Collector Land Acquisition proceeded to make his award No. 30/80-85 on 24.1.1985 offering compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfie...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »