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.
Association of Plot Holders Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ131
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The members of the petitioner-Association had applied for plots in the forthcoming Industrial Estate in Okhla pursuant to the advertisement in 1982 issued on behalf of respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Industries, Delhi Administration. In the draw of lots held in 1983, 177 successful applicants included the members of the petitioner Association also. However due to encroachment on some of the plots only 101 applicants successful in the draw of lots were given plots at Rs. 245 per sq. yds. Thereafter in 1984 the respondent No. 2 secured 15 more acres of land in 1986 the members of the petitioner-Association were informed that alternative plots would be allotted to them after handing over of the site by DDA. Most of the members of the petitioner Association were allotted and paid for substitute/alternate plots in May 1993 at Rs. 930/- per square meter and had the lease deeds stamped by the Collectorate of Stamps and some members of petitioner even paid the conveyancing ...
Rattan Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT378
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition ct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the claimants are for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Appeals by Union of India are for reduction in the amount of compensation. 2. Land acquired through two different notifications under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.1980 and 24.11.1981 is the subject matter of the appeals. On 17.11.1980 by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act land situate in village Dallupura was sought to be acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was made on 29.9.1981. The Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.79/82-83 on 9.3.1983 offering amount of compensation to the claimants at a rate of Rs.12,500/- per bigha. 3. Another notification dated 24.11.1981 was issued under Section 4 of the Act notifying more land situate in village Dallupura fo...
Shri Ram Gopal Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ712
Khan, J.1. The short question involved is whether Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) jurisdiction extended to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) also. Tribunal by impugned order dated 18.10.2000 has washed its hands off holding that it enjoyed no such jurisdiction. But petitioner was still wanting the jurisdiction to be vested in it in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Petitioner belongs to TES Group B service in Department of Telecommunication (DOT). While he was on deputation to MTNL, he was charged of some irregularties and finally placed under suspension in view of the pendency of criminal prosecution against him by order dated 3.4.2000 passed by Chief General Manager of MTNL. He challenged This in QA 789/2000 which was opposed by respondents on the jurisdictional plea that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint/grievance connected with service matters in MTNL. Tribunal accepted This position and dismissed petitioner's QA by impugned order dated...
Uco Bank Vs. Lachhman Das Popli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ50
Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The plaintiff UCO Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Calcutta and its Zonal Office at Parliament Street, New Delhi and one of the branches at Sadar Bazar, Delhi has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 6,69,335/- against the defendants. The defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Popli Traders, 2557, Swaran Gali, Teliwara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The defendant had opened his current account on 7th October, 1982 with the Sadar Bazar branch of the plaintiff Bank in his business name M/s. Popli Traders under his sole proprietorship. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff Bank allowed temporary overdraft facility in his current account against the fixed deposit receipts which he availed. On 19th January, 1991, an overdraft of Rs, 7,35,313-83 paise was shown in defendant's account, out of which defendant availed temporary overdraft facility limit of Rs...
Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN573(Delhi)
Heard.2. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in adopting its findings in the income-tax matter of the assessed for the assessment year 1983-84?'3. The findings relating to the income-tax matter, as referred to in the question, related to the claim under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held by this court in Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT : [1990]185ITR178(Delhi) that the assessed's income for the relevant assessment year was not exempt under section 80-O. The said conclusion appears to have been approved by the Apex Court in Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 811 .4. That being the position, the obvious answer to the question is in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.5. Reference is disposed of accordingly....
Frederic R. Harris (India) (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)81ITD227(Delhi)
1. The only issue arising out of this appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs. 83,58,500 being the amount of provisions for expenses.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing engineering consultancy services mainly in the areas of development of infrastructure relating to ports and harbours, bridges and highways etc. During the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 83,58,500 for the expenses incurred corresponding to the revenue earned during the period. This amount has been simultaneously credited under the head "Provisions for expenses" and shown in the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer noticed that in the balance sheet, it was shown under the head "Provisions for tax" amounting to Rs. 88,46,304, details of which were given in Schedule 8 to the balance sheet. The details as mentioned in Schedule 8 are being reproduced as under :Provision for duty and taxes 58,963Provisions for exp...
Commissioner of Surtax Vs. International Airport Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)69; [2002]254ITR159(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN702(Delhi)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), read with the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (in short 'the Surtax Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty is not livable under Section 9 of the Surtax Act if the assessed has filed the return under Section 5(2) of that Act but had failed to file the return under Section 5(1) of that Act ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1973-74.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :4. The assessed a public limited company was required to furnish its return of income of chargeable profits under Section 5(1) of the Surtax Act, 1964, by September 30, 1973. However, the assessed filed its return on October 30, 1974, in response...
Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Indo European Machinery Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR560(Delhi)
1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench :'Whether, the order of the Tribunal that when once the return was filed under one or the other of the three sub-sections in Section 5 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, no penalty is attracted under Section 9 of the said Act is legally correct ?'2. We had the occasion to deal with a similar case in Surtax Reference No. 2 of 1982 (see CIT v. International Airport Authority of India : [2002]254ITR159(Delhi) . Following the view expressed in that case, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue....
Mr. Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT639; 2002(61)DRJ488
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The question which falls for determination is whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment of pension even though he was not allowed to complete the qualifying service due to an erroneous decision taken by the Respondent to discharge him from service precipitately. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps as 'Boy Recruit' on 16.4.1048 when he was about sixteen years. Thereafter, he was re-mustered as a 'Man Recruit' with effect from 1.1.1950. It is a common case of the parties that in terms of the Pension Regulations, the Petitioner was required to render a minimum service of fifteen years for becoming eligible for the grant of pensionary benefits. The Respondents have averred that the due to an oversight on their part, the Petitioner was inadvertently Discharged by the Army Authorities by counting his service as having commenced from 16.4.1948 instead of 1.1.1950. There is no Explanationn why the Respondents' had simultaneously also overlooked t...
Cit Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN710(Delhi)
Heard. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with section 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the gratuity reserve of Rs. 2 lakhs and reserve for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 7,19,863 are includible in the capital base for determining the statutory deduction under section 2(6) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. We find that gratuity reserve and reserve for bad and doubtful debts have not been worked out on actuarial basis. It is to be noted that so far as the gratuity reserve is concerned, it is to be worked out on actuarial basis. For the purpose of bad and doubtful debts actual quantification would be necessary. That question does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. That being the positi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »