Delhi Court August 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.
Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR671(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding disallowance of Rs. 1,12,810 under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessed, a public limited company, claimed that no disallowance under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, 'the Rules'), was required to be made. The stand of the assessed was that boarding and lodging expenses and daily allowance paid to an employee after he reached his destination should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the limits prescribed under Rule 6D. The figure of such expenditure was undisputedly Rs. 1,22,677. The Income-tax Officer did ...
Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN560(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Following question has been referred for opinion of this court at the instance of the assessed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding disallowance of Rs. 1,12,810 under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. Dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessed, a public limited company, claimed that no disallowance under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was required to be made. Stand of the assessed was that boarding and lodging expenses and daily allowance paid to an employee after he reached his destination should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the limits prescribed under rule 6D. The figure of such expenditure was undisputedly Rs. 1,22,677. The Income Tax Officer did not accept the assessed's sub...
Cit Vs. Freezeking Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN473(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. These four reference applications shall stand disposed of by our common judgment.Dispute relates to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74.2. Following questions have been referred for our opinion:'Assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is admissible in respect of profits attributable to manufacturing of article even where such manufacturing process as listed in the Sixth Schedule is an intermediary stage in 'industry'?Assessment year 1972- 73 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to development rebate at higher rate of 25 per cent in respect of machinery used in the manufacturing of steel castings and forgings, even if it was an intermediary stage in the industry?Assessment year 1973- 74 :Whether, on th...
D.K. Nawlakha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR188(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN716(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether there was material on record to justify the conclusion that there was no agreement between the petitioner and Smt. Promila Nawlakha to jointly purchase the jackpot ticket before the race on January 7, 1973 ? (2) Whether there was any material to hold that the winnings from the jackpot ticket belonged exclusively to the assesses and did not belong in equal shares to the assessed and Smt. Promila Nawlakha, particularly, in view of the affidavit and the conduct of the parties in regard to the winnings ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessed is the exclusive owner of the jackpot winnings and Smt. Promila Nawlakha could not be the...
Taylor Instrument Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)293; [2002]254ITR125(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN750(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat C. J.1. The following questions have 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 'D', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'):'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 144B are applicable and, if so, whether assessment was made beyond the period prescribed by law and as such invalid ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability towards gratuity amounting to Rs. 2,02,181 is allowable as an expenditure ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the development rebate is allowable in respect of loose tools where individual items of loose tools cost less than Rs. 750 and was allowed as a revenue expenditure ?(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission receipts of Rs. 88,950 should be treated as profits and gains attributable to...
Usha Sales Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR145(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN472(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have 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' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'):'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability of Rs. 2,92,319 incurred by way of interest under various sections ofthe Income-tax Act was an allowable deduction in computing the profits and gains of the assessed for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability to pay surtax is an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessed for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The factual position need not be gone into in detail as issues involved in the questions have been directly dealt with by the apex court. So far as the fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Megaska International (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)660; [2002]254ITR283(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 'A', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to-(i) investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii); and (ii) relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1978-79.3. The factual position in a nutshell, as is indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows :The assessed is a private limited company and was, at the relevant point of time, engaged in the business as a building contractor. Its accounting period ended on September 30, 1977. It undertook a sub-contract from Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., New Delhi, a Government of India undertaking, for the construction of 350 dwelling units at Ardiy...
Mukesh Kumar Saini and ors Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4587; 94(2001)DLT241; 2001(60)DRJ65
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition u/s. 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 199/2000 under section 324/342/34 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (here-in-after SC/ST Act).2. Above noted case was registered on 26th April, 2000 on the basis of the report lodged by Raj Kumar @ Gattu alleging that he along with his brother Hanuman are running a Mithai Shop which is in front of the house of petitioners. At about 8.30 p.m. electrician came and repaired the electric connection at the DESU Pole at Prem Gali: electricity to the house of petitioners was restored but the electricity in the rest of the area was nt restored. He was asking the electrician as to why he had not restored their electricity, int eh meantime, his brother Hanuman also came there from his shop. Petitioners forcibly took him inside their shop saying 'AAJ JULAHEY K...
Talwar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., M/S Balkau Timbers Pvt. Ltd., M/S Five Star ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT84; 2001(60)DRJ373
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. These three appeals raise common question as regards the scope and effect of Section 11(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The disputes between the parties arise out of the lease deed dated 28.10.1993 in respect of premises A-1/26, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi by the appellant in favor of the respondent. The said lease deed incorporated an arbitration clause. In view of the failure of the respondent to hand over vacant possession in terms of the lease deed despite a letter dated 6.11.1996, the arbitration clause was invoked by the appellant. The arbitrator entered upon reference and published his Award on 28.4.1997 which was subsequently corrected for clerical error vide order dated 29.7.97. The arbitration clause envisaged the appointment of the Arbitrator with notice to the other party and the other party was required to nominate their own arbitrator within 15 days of the service of such notice. The ...
Smt. Usha N. Dadlani and ors. Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Oberoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC634; 2002ACJ2069; 93(2001)DLT675; 2001(59)DRJ726
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') seeking permission to examine certain officials of Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and to accept certain certificates purportedly given by the Board as additional evidence. The application relates to LPA No. 95 of 1991, which is directed against the order of learned Single Judge in FAO No. 1981.2. The appellants-petitioners are the widow, daughter and son of Shri Narender N. Dadlani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who succumbed to injuries sustained on account of fatal vehicular accident on 02.11.1997. Offending vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'insurer'). The deceased was working as an employee of the Board. Petitioners as claimants lodged a claim for compensation. It was their stand that the deceased was getting about Rs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »