Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Frick India Ltd Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD582(Delhi)

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.This appeal, preferred by the assessed, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 30-11-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1997-98.2. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are the effective grounds agitated and argued by the learned counsel for the assessed. Facts giving rise to these grounds are that assessed is a company in which public are substantially interested and was found engaged in the manufacture and sale of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipments and parts thereof within and outside India. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1997-98 ended on 31-3-1997. The assessing officer noted that assessed had filed return of income at a total income of Rs. 2,50,04,520. assessed-company had claimed to have received a net consideration of Rs. 6.78 crores under the head capital gains which was set off against its claim for exemption under section 54EA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Hewlett Packard Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 4th Nov., 1993, of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi. It pertains to the asst. yr.1989-90. "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A) has erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,11,33,650 representing payments for the user of the rights, know-how technology, etc., despite the definition of royalty in Article VIIIA of DTA and the facts of the case being different from M/s DCM Ltd. relied upon." 3. Learned Departmental Representative places strong reliance on the assessment order and invited our attention to page 3 of the same. It was submitted by her that the issue revolves around the finding whether the transaction is a case of transfer of technology or user of technology and the AO has made a categorical finding after examining the issue in detail that this is a case of user of technology and as such it is taxable. It was contended by her that there was no dispute over the fact that the provision of the Double T...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Hewlett Packard Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Del)786

ORDERDiva Singh, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 4-11-1993, of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, New Delhi. It pertains to the assessment year 1989-90,2. The revenue has raised the following grounds before us :'On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,11,33,650 representing payments for the user of the rights, know-how technology, etc., despite the definition of royalty in article VIIIA of DTA and the facts of the case being different from M/s. DCM Ltd. relied upon.'3. Learned Departmental Representative places strong reliance on the assessment order and invited our attention to page 3 of the same. It was submitted by her that the issue revolves around the finding whether the transaction is a case of transfer of technology or user of technology and the assessing officer has made a categorical finding after examining the issue in detail that this is a case of user of technology...

Smt. Vimla Sharma @ Bimla Sharma Vs. Smt. Veeran Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT129

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.C.M. 1833/2001.1. This is an application seeking a Review of the Orders passed on 24.7.2001. The grounds raised are that the Petitioner/Tenant had appointed Ms. Sudha Srivastava, Advocate but she was not present when the Revision Petition first came up for hearing on 6.6.2001. before S.K. Mahajan, J. the Learned Vacation Judge. It has been alleged that on 24.7.2001 when Ms. Sudha Srivastava appeared, she gave ' contradictory statements so that Respondent could succeed and the Petitioner could lose her case'. In the Reply filed by the Landlord to the main petition it has been disclosed that similar complaints were leveled by the Revisionist against her counsel Shri Kulbhushan Mehta and Shri Jai Parkash.2. In the Order dated 24.7.2001 which is sought to be reviewed, I had taken into consideration the fact that S.K. Mahahan, J., the Learned Vacation Judge, had given a hearing tot he counsel who appeared for the Petitioner on 6.6.2001. It was after this hearing that ...

Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT699

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar Gupta has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the demand letter dated 30.6.2000. A sum of Rs.11,15,505/- was demanded in case the payment was made up to 25.1.2000. The petitioner came to the court complaining of discrimination as similar flat holders, were being charged lesser amounts. the petitioner accordingly even made a representation dated 4.9.2000 to the DDA for rectification of the demand letter.3. Respondent DDA has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is fairly conceded that there was an error in as much as the API i.e. actual period interest, element was taken twice in the computation of the amount demanded. Learned counsel for DDA submits that the amount payable on the basis of the disposal cost worked out to Rs.8,70,582 in stead of Rs.10,83, 389/-. In view of the DDA having conceded this error in the ...

Sh. Raj Chawla Vs. Sh. P.N. Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas592(Delhi); 93(2001)DLT316; 2001(60)DRJ63

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 4th January, 2000 passed by Ms. Barkha Gupta, M.M. Patiala House, New Delhi summoning the petitioner holding that, prima facie, a case u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is made out against him.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the complaint there is no averment to the effect that the cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds or to show that petitioner's account did not have necessary funds to honour the cheque in question. thereforee, no cognizance could be taken on such complaint. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued to the contrary.3. Law in this regard is well settled, merely because payment of the cheque was stopped it would not disentitle the beneficiary from initiating proceedings u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court in Modi Cement Ltd. Vs . K.K.Nandi : 1998CriLJ1397 had held:'16. We see great force in the above submi...

Shri Uday Punj Vs. Minicipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT587

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. the petitioner has field this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition and direction to the respondent from removing the generator set installed near the premises of the petitioner for the supply of electricity. Direction was further sough that the gas cylinders and other material stored in the open space next to the premises at 62, Basant Lok Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi be not removed.3. The petitioner runs a popular restaurant named 'IGI Friday' at 62, Basant Lok, Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner's case is that the respondent DVB has sanctioned load of 68 KVA against the requirement of 250 KVA. It is further pleaded since DVB was facing a power crisis, vide its letter of 11.6.1999, it asked the consumers to switch over the their generator sets between 12.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.4. Notice to show cause was issued in this petition on 11.6.19...

All India Lawyers Union Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT187; 2001(59)DRJ815

ORDER1. We find that our order dated 3rd May, 2001 passed in C.W. No. 3507/2000 has not been complied with. By that order we had directed that it shall be the bounden duty of the Authorities concerned to provide electricity, potable water and decent toilets in the Schools. We find that in many of the schools the facilities of potable water and toilets are not available. In certain schools electricity has not been provided. 2. The Commissioner MCD, who is present in person, says that if two months' time is given to him he will see that the order dated 3rd May, 2001 is complied with to the satisfaction of the Court. We will give one more chance to the Commissioner MCD to rectify the deficiencies in the various schools. In order to facilitate the functioning of the Committee, which we had appointed vide order dated 3rd May, 2001 we consider it appropriate to replace the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, by the Secretary Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. We order accordingly. Th...

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(172)CTC95; [2002]253ITR593(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1995-96 in respect of an assesses, which is a charitable trust.3. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass.4. For the assessment year in question, the assessed filed its return of income along with the audit report, balance-sheet, etc. The Assessing Officer noted that for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act, certain deposits made with S. M. Finance Limited and Unitech Limited were included. These two were not public undertakings, and, thereforee, according to the Assessing Officer, the deposits were made in violation of the provisions contained in Section 11(5) of the Act and thereforee the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act was denied. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)'). The same was dismissed ex part...

Director of Income Tax Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN569(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The dispute relates to the assessment year 1995-96 in respect of an assessed, which is a charitable trust.2. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. For the assessment year in question, the assessed filed its return of income, along with audit report, balance sheet, etc. The assessing officer noted that for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, certain deposits made with S.M. Finance Ltd. and Unitech Ltd. were included. These two were not public undertakings and, thereforee, according to the assessing officer, deposits were made in violation of provisions contained in section 11(5) and, thereforee, the benefit under sections 11 and 12 read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act was denied. The petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The same was dismissed ex parte holding that there was no compliance on the date fixed and...