Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Dy. Cit Vs. Gold Tax Furnishing Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Del)223

ORDERC.L. Bokolia, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-X, New Delhi, dated 16-12-1994, and the cross-objection preferred by the assessed against the appeal filed by the revenue.2. While filing the appeal, revenue has taken the following ground :'On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, New Delhi has erred in directing the assessing officer to treat the cash of Rs. 31,50,000 assessed (sic-seized) during the search and seizure operations under section 132 as advance tax and interest under section 234B and 234C in violation of the provisions of section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 '.3. The facts of this appeal are that a search and seizure operation was carried out on 18-2-1993 at the business premises of the assessed and at the residential premises of its partners. From the residential premises of its partner, following unexplained assets were found and seized by the search party :Rs.(...

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN720(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard.Following question has been referred for opinion of this court at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the capital of the assessed-company as computed under rules 1 2 and 3 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was not liable to be reduced under rule 4 of the said Schedule in relation to the deduction allowed/ allowable to it under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We need not deal with the factual aspects in detail in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Second ITO v. Stumpp Schuele & Somappa (P) Ltd. : [1991]187ITR108(SC) . thereforee, answer to the question is in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.The application is disposed of....

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN568(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard.All the four reference applications involve common question of law and are disposed of by this common order.The dispute relates to assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. At the instance of the revenue, for the first two years, i.e., 1,969-70 and 1970-71, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was merely on the basis of change of opinion on the part of the Surtax Officer and that the Surtax Officer had no information in his possession in consequence of which he could have reasons to believe that chargeable profits had been the subject of excessive relief under the said Act?'Whereas for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, a commo...

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Dalmia Ceramic Ind. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN479(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard.Following questions have been referred for opinion of this court at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the capital employed was not to be proportionately reduced by Rs. 2,111 under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the deductible amount of income-tax on the dividend income was to be determined with reference to the net dividend income (after relief under section 80M) and not on the gross dividend income ?'The dispute relates to assessment year 1976-77.2. Considering the answer given in respect of similar questions in IT Reference No. 329 of 1979, disposed of on 6-9-2000 and IT Reference ...

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)351

ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J.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....

Commissioner of Surtax (Central) Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN713(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard.Following question has been referred for opinion of this court at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal is right that in computing the capital for the purpose of surtax assessment, under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, the capital is not to be reduced by the income, profits or gains of a company exempt under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'Dispute relates to assessment year 1970-71.2. We need not deal with the factual aspects in detail in view of the fact that in the assessed's own case in IT Reference No. 329 of 1979The reference application is disposed of....

A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)475

1.This is an appeal by the assessee which is a foreign bank. In all eleven grounds have been raised in this appeal. They, however, relate to one issue of taxability , of interest on securities, bonds and debentures amounting to Rs. 71,43,62,246 under the Interest-tax Act.2. The assessee claimed interest on securities, bonds/and debentures exempt . under the Interest-tax Act on the ground that under Section 2(7) of the Act, the interest on loans and advances was taxable and as interest on securities, bonds and debentures was not interest on loans and advances the same was not liable to taxation under the Interest-tax Act.3. The AO was not convinced with the assessee's contention. He was of the view that loans and advances included securities, bonds and debentures and, therefore, interest on securities, bonds and debentures was also liable to taxation under Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act.He observed that in the earlier version of the Interest-tax Act, interest on securities, bonds...

Greater Ashoka Land and Dev. Co. (P.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The first and the main issue arising out of this appeal relates to the computation of profits in the case of the assessee engaged in the development of land and sale of plots.2. Brief facts of the case are these. A proprietary concern namely M/s Ashoka Land & Development Corporation was engaged in the business of development of land and sale of plots. This business was being carried on since 1963. The assessee-company came into existence on 20th April, 1984 with a view to take over the business of the aforesaid proprietary concern. The said business was taken over by the assessee and since then the same is being continued. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold 49 plots measuring total area of 10489 sq. yards against total cpnsideration of Rs. 23,88,127. Since the assessee had been following the project completion method/Single venture method, it credited the aforesaid consideration to the accounts of the customers and the same was shown as liability in the ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri R.B. Sharma and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT318; 2002(63)DRJ145

ORDERKhan,(J)1. Parties are contesting this litigation for about three decades now and R-1, an Indian Police Service Officer, has spent his whole service life in it. Though he stands compulsorily retired by now, he is still fighting it out in a 'never say die' approach.2. R-1 was initially on a short commission with Army from 1964. He later entered IPS in 1968 and was allotted to Maharashtra State Cadre. He was struck by misfortune on 23.4.73 when he was discharged from service after completing probation. He challenged this in CWP 136/74 before this court which was allowed and his order of discharge quashed with consequential benefits by order dated 11.1.79. Petitioners took Appeal (LPA No.63/79) against this but failed. He was consequently reinstated in service as SP by order dated 27.1.82 but without any consequential benefits. While he was engaged in seeking enforcement of writ court order and its benefits, petitioners recorded adverse ACR against him for 1983-84 and 1985-86. He sou...

Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Fdc Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT141

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act which is carrying on business, inter alia, of manufacturer and seller of pharmaceuticals and medicinal preparations. It claims to be a well known pharmaceutical company enjoying very high reputation for its products because of excellent quality and efficacy. Total turnover of plaintiff company for the year 2000-2001 was more than 35 crores. One of its drugs is under the Trade MarkCEFI. This medicine is used for the treatment of typhoid, lower Respiratory Tract Infection, urinary Tract Infection and Or It is Media and contains cefixime. The plaintiff has filed present suit for permanent injunction restraining, passing off, delivery of infringing goods, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant with the allegations that in relation to same medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations defendant has adopted the Trade Mark ZIFI which is phonetically similar to that of plaintiff's Trade Mark CEFI...