Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Cwt Vs. Begum Qamar Sarwar Ali

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN762(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred, in respect of two reference applications, for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the right of the assessed to the property left by the father, late Nawab of Rampur, valued by the Wealth Tax Officer at Rs. 2,87,460 (assessment year 1967-68) and Rs. 8,83,083 (assessment year 1972-73) could not be treated as her wealth liable to be included in her total wealth ?'2. Factual aspects may not be noted in detail in view of the fact that in WT Reference No. 93 of 1983 in the assessed's own case, by order dated 12-10-2000 we have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing. We direct, accordingly, so far as these cases are concerned.3. The reference applications...

Cit Vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)285

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.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 D, Delhi (in short Tribunal) :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right, in law, in directing the Income Tax Officer to determine the question of deductibility of expenditure incurred by the assessed on its employees, etc. stay outside their headquarters during periods spent in actually conducting the business of the assessed, with reference to the provisions of section 37(1) and without considering the inhibition contained in section 37(3), Income Tax Act ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.For the concerned assessment year assessed had filed its return declaring income of Rs. 4,14,21,290 as per original return dated 30-6-1975. Subsequently revised return was f...

Cit Vs. Bharat Commerce and Ind. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN480(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to directions given by this court, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 154 for the assessment year 1962-63 by holding that there was no mistake apparent from record for action under section 154?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1962-63.2. Though the question refers to the legality of the order under section 154, we find that the same is really of academic interest in view of the fact that for the assessment year in question, decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. : [1987]167ITR639(SC) would be applicable. thereforee, what the Income Tax Officer had originally done is in line with the decision of the Apex Court. That being the p...

indo Imex Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]253ITR743(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two reference applications contain identical questions and are, thereforee, taken up together for disposal.2. Pursuant to the 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 for the opinion of this court 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 was right in holding that the liability in respect of the sum of Rs. 29,269 incurred by the assessed-company to the foreign suppliers of transformers as a result of devaluation of the Indian rupee, was not a liability pertaining to the assessment year 1972-73 ?'3. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73.4. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed at the relevant point of time was a private limited company. For the assessment year 1971-72, there was disallowance of Rs. 2...

indo Imex Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN714(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. These two reference applications contain identical questions and are, thereforee, taken up together for disposal. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability in respect of the sum of Rs. 29,269 incurred by the assessed-company to the foreign suppliers of transformers as a result of devaluation of the Indian rupee, was not a liability pertaining to the assessment year 1972-73 ?'Dispute relates to assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73.2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows :The assessed at the relevant point of time was a private limited company. For the assessment year 1971-72, there was disallowance of Rs. 29,269 in respect of the claim of the foreign suppliers ackno...

Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)442

In the Delhi High Court Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.Judgment Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to the direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 21,110 paid by it as commission for renting office premises on the ground that the said payment was in the nature of capital expenditure ?The dispute relates to assessment year 1970-71. 2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :assessed a public limited company claimed deduction of Rs. 23,735 as commission for renting office premises. Rs. 2,625 was paid for renting office premises at 12-13/F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. These premises were vacated on 14-9...

Nanik Laungani Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order No. Adj/186/AD/AKL/B/2001 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.0 lakh on the appellant for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Shri Rajan Malkani assailed the impugned order on the ground of its being passed ex parte which is, ex facie, illegal for the reason that he along with the appellant did appear on 15-5-2001 and waited for 45 minutes when he was informed by the peon that the case was being adjourned. Shri Malkani then insisted that his Vakalatnama as well as reply to the show-cause notice be taken on record. Shri Malkani submitted that these have, in fact, been taken on record as could be gathered from the impugned order which contains detailed reference to this reply and yet the adjudicating authority has proceeded on the basis of non-appearance of the appellant and his counsel. 3. Dr. Shamusuddin did not controvert the correctness of the averments made by the appellants counsel. 4. I have gi...

Popular Packing Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. These three appeals were filed with a common Memorandum of Appeal against a common order dated 30th April, 2001 passed on a common prayer for stay of proceedings in all the three Original Applications, namely, 572 97, 573/97 and 574/97.2. By the impugned order the prayers of all the defendants in the aforesaid three suits for stay of the proceedings in the C. As. have been negated. Feeling aggrieved the defendants in the aforesaid O. As.have filed these appeals.2. Since the impugned order is a common order in the aforesaid three O.As. for recovery, all these three appeals are being decided by this one common order.3. The short question involved in all these appeals is as to in the three claim applications who is the principal borrower and who are the guarantors. According to the appellants, M/s. Peacock Industries Limited is the principal borrower in all the three claim applications whereas the plea of the respondent Bank is that M/s. Popular Packing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Rajasthan Chemi...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The short but interesting question arising out of this appeal is whether the following amounts of income can be said to have been derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-I:-- 2. The aforesaid amounts were included by the assessee in the profits of the industrial undertaking for claiming the deduction under section 80-1 for assessment year 1992-93. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the words "derived from" used by the legislature in section 80-1 has restricted meaning as compared to the expression "attributable to". Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84. Applying this legal position he was of the view that the aforesaid amounts of income could not be said to be income derived from the industrial undertaking. Accordingly the claim of the assessee to that extent was disallowed.3. The matter was carried bef...

Apollo Finance Limited Vs. M/S. Gsl (India) Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]108CompCas184(Delhi); 94(2001)DLT353

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. I.A. 6868/2000 in S.No. 2558/99 1. This is an application under Section 442 of the Companies Act, on behalf of defendant no. 1 for the stay of the suit on the ground that winding up petition being CP No. 79/95 was admitted by the Company Judge of the Gujarat High Court on 15.2.2000 and subsequent thereto BIFR exercising the powers under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short 'SICA') has entertained reference No. 254/2000 on 7.8.2000.2. For the stay of the suit proceedings, defendant has taken refuge under the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Patheja Bros. Forgings & Stamping and Anr. Vs . I.C.I.C.I. Ltd. & Ors. : AIR2000SC2553 wherein question for consideration was whether the proceedings can continue against the guarantor in respect of which a reference has been entertained under SICA.3. The Supreme Court while upsetting the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Madalso International Ltd. wherein a view was take...