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.
Sh. S.C. Gupta Vs. Central Vigilance Commission and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT594
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayers in this writ petition are essentially of two natures. Firstly, for the holding of an enquiry into the complaints lodged by the Petitioner. Secondly, it has been prayed that a high level independent committee should be appointed to go into the working of the Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, : 1998CriLJ1208 . Predicated on this decision it has been prayed that a continuing mandamus be issued, that is, while the petition is kept pending, the Central Vigilance Commission and/or any other Authority may be ordered to complete its investigations and submit its report. In Vineet Narain's case(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed that the Central Bureau of Investigation had been insert and inactive in matters where the accusation made was against high dignitaries. Because of the reluctance...
M.S.J. Consultants Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT325; 2002(63)DRJ322
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. In pursuance of the award having been filed notices were issued to the petitioner (MSJ Consultants Ltd.) and to the Delhi Development Authority (for short he respondent). Both the petitioner as well as the respondent have preferred objections to the award referred to above.2. The petitioner contends that he had made all the arrangement for entire work in anticipation of the award for the full site But only part thereof was permitted to be executed. The contract bond was executed on 9.6.80 by the parties. The respondent illegally permitted the plaintiff to execute the work on inferior and more cumbersome part of the site. The award in any case is being assailed alleging that arbitrator has misconducted himself. He basically misconceived the proceedings. It is further alleged that the arbitrator totally ignored the fact that no person was produced to testify the version of the respondent in rebuttal to the claim of the petitioner. In particular reference has been...
V.P. Punj Vs. Asst. Commisioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT156
ORDERS.K. Agarwal. J.1. This petition u/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 26th July, 1998 passed by the Court of Sh. Ravi Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing Revision against the order framing charge u/s. 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') in the complaint titled 'Prabodha Seth v. Cornelia Investment Private Limited and Ors.' 2. Facts in brief are: that petitioner no 3 is a company registered under the Company Act, 1956, petitioners no. 1 and 2 were its directors during the relevant period. Income Tax return of the company, for the assessment year (1990-91) was not filed within the prescribed period i.e. 31.2.1990. The return could be filed uptil 31.3.1991, under clause (a) of proviso of Section 276CC, of the Act to avoid prosecution. It was actually filed on 17.6.1991, the tax and interest thereon was also deposited. On 20th February, 1992 notice was issued to petitioners, by responden...
Sanjiv Katyal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT7; 2001(60)DRJ166
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award rule of the Court. The respondents have filed objections by way of is 2724/93. Most of the objections filed by the respondents relate to the counter claim of the respondent. Ms. Salwan, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that non-award in relation to counter claim no. 3 in which the respondent has claimed Rs. 31,586/- on account of levy of compensation under Clause 2 of the agreement was not proper on the part of the arbitrator. The arbitrator ought to have allowed counter claim no. 3 of respondent. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the respondent has cited Arbitration Law Report 1995 (2) p. 307. She has further contended that clause 2 of the agreement was not arbitral and hence the rejection of the counter claim on that score was illegal and the arbitrator has committed legal misconduct and to that extend the awar...
V.P. Punj Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN543(Delhi)
This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 26-7-1998 passed by the court of Sh. Ravi Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing revision against the order framing charge under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the complaint titled 'Prabodha Seth v. Cornelia Investment (P) Ltd.2. Facts in brief are : that the petitioner No. 3 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were its directors during the relevant period. The income-tax return of the company for the assessment year (1990-91) was not filed within the prescribed period, i.e., 31-12-1990. The return could be filed up to 31-3-1991, under clause (a) of proviso to section 276CC, to avoid prosecution. It was actually filed on 17-6-1991, the tax and interest thereon were also deposited. On 20-2-1992 the notice was issued to the petitioners, by the respondent No. 1, to show cau...
Dy. Cit Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]79ITD557(Delhi)
ORDERSinghal, J.M. 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 :Rs.(i)Sale of import licenses3,93,740(ii)Sales-tax refund8,28,010(iii)Claims from Insurance & Transport7,79,642(iv)Duty drawback1,02,301(v)Difference in exchange7,73,407(vi)CCS2,88,740(vii)Amount received against IPRS6,29,3692. The aforesaid amounts were included by the assessed in the profits of the industrial undertaking for claiming the deduction under section 80-I 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-I 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]113ITR84(SC) . Applying thi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Electronic Haryana (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR76(Delhi)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed-company was entitled to depreciation under Section 32(1) in respect of the building which was used for the purpose of its business and which it had acquired on dissolution of the erstwhile partnership of which the assessed was a partner though the building is not registered in the assessed's name ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.3. The essence of the dispute is evident from the question itself. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail in view of the fact that the issue involved has been squarely dealt with by the apex court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]239ITR775(SC) . We acco...
Lt. Col. Yashwant Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ222
ORDERVikramjit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner has been passed over for promotion to the rank of Colonel in the Indian Army. It is this decision which has been assailed by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. After the Counter Affidavit was filed by the respondent an additional affidavit had been placed on record by the Petitioner in which he has stated that the Respondents have violated Special Army Order 105 (SAO 105) which reads as follows:'105. Extracts of assessment of reporting officers other than the IO required to be communicated to the officer, will be sent to the officer through the IO. Such extracts will be signed and dated by the reporting officer. The officer reported upon after signing the extracts, will return it to the IO. The extract, bearing the signature of the Officer reported upon will then be forwarded to the MS Branch for record.'2. It is the common case that the Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer, namely, Rear Admiral M.S. Bedi (her...
Shrimati Vidyawati Kanodia Vs. Local Health Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ471; 94(2001)DLT8; 2001(60)DRJ242
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Criminal complaint against the petitioner, filed by the respondent pending before the court of Sh. Manoj Jain, M.M. New Delhi, under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short PFA Act), as 'Local Health Authority v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.'2. Brief facts are on 18.8.98 Food Inspector took sample of Mustard Oil from M/s. Harit Store owned by Naresh Kumar which manufactured by M/s. Delhi Kanodia Oil Mills. The sample on analysis was opined to be adulterated. The complaint was lodged against Naresh Kumar, vendor, partner of Delhi Kanodia Oil Mills (manufacturers), namely, Kanhaya Lal kanodia, Lalit Kanodia, Abhishek Kanodia and the petitioner. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused because she was a director of another comply which in turn was a partner of said manufacturing mill (M/s.Delhi Kanodia Oil Mills). The samples were found to be adulterated being non-conforming t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. M/S Volga Restaurant
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)206; [2002]253ITR405(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of Revenue, following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench (in short, the 'Tribunal') under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act,):-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the expenses of Rs.121752/ incurred by the assessed in replacement of the air-conditioning plant was a revenue expenditure being in the nature of current repairs? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the deduction of Rs.6000/- paid to the counsel as retainership fee was admissible to the assessed u/s 37(I) of the Income Tax Act? Dispute relates to assessment year 1976-77.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:assessed was carrying on business of running Volga Restaurant at Connaught Place New Delhi. On 12.6.75 business premises got damag...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »