Delhi Court September 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.
Oriental Fire General Insurance Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN986(Delhi)
Heard.2. Following questions have been referred at the instance of the assessed under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tribunal Delhi Bench A, New Delhi :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the expression income by way of dividend occurring in rule 1(viii) of 1st Schedule to Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 means and denotes net income computed under that head and forming part of the assessed income and not gross amount of dividend received by the assessed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in cancelling the earlier order in proceedings under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72.4. The factual position need not be noted in detail, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Sundram Industries (P) Ltd. (2001) 19 DTC 474 (SC) ...
Grow-on Exports (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. J.K. Goel and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT333; 2001(60)DRJ766
ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of complaint No.135/2000/I-J.K.Goel vs. Grow-On Exports (India)Ltd. and proceedings taken there under.2. Copy of complaint is placed at pages 28 to 32 while that of order passed dated 10th July 2000 passed therein at page 36. It may only be noticed that complaint was filed by respondent No.2 herein in respect of offences under sections 383, 384, 403, 405, 406, 419, 483, 511 read with section 34 IPC alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Along with complaint an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed with the prayer that investigation in the complaint may be ordered to be made by the SHO PS Roop Nagar, Delhi. On 10th July 2000 following order came to be passed on the complaint and application by the trial court:-'Present : Sh.D.S. Tiwari, Attorney of Complainant with Ms. Gurkamal Hora, Adv. Fresh complaint received by assignment. It be checked and registered. ...
M/S Auto Pex Motor Co. Vs. Deepak Sethi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT447
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. They admit that they are brothers but love has been lost so much between them that no suggestion to patch the disputes has found favor.2. Plaintiff (Auto Pex Motor Co.) is a partnership firm consisting of two partners Ramesh Chand Sethi and Kapil Sethi. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of gaskets (auto goods). It is the sole proprietor of trade mark 'Master Label' in relation to gaskets. During the course of business the plaintiff also started using the trade mark Super Master and Gold Master. The predecessors of the plaintiff had adopted trade mark 'Master' in relation to gaskets in the year 1970 and continuously used the same up to 24th March, 1994. The trade mark was assigned to the plaintiff vide deed of assignment of 24th August, 1994. The plaintiff has continuously been using the said trade mark. M/s Auto Pex Sales India was the predecessor of the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff in order to acquire statutory rights for the trade mar...
Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Others Vs. Government of Nct Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT456
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioners have filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 6.4.1999, passed by Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the appeal No. 24 of 1999, titled Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others vs. Geva Sampada Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others.2. The appeal had been preferred by the petitioners against the arbitrator's award dated 11.12.1998, made under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies act, by which the order of the Administrator dated 22.3.1999, holding the allotment of Flat No. M/12/C to the petitioner's late husband as illegal and directing its allotment to respondent No. 5 Shri Kewal Krishan Arora.3. Before dealing with the submissions made by learned counsel fort he petitioners, Mr. R.G. Srivastava, it would be appropriate to briefly recapitulate the factual matrix of the case to the extent relevant for disposal of the writ peti...
Sonali Gulati Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT499; 2002(61)DRJ159
Vijender Jain, J. is 6792/2001 in PR 51/98. 1. Counsel for the applicant says that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS) 325/2001, this application has become infructuous. Counsel wishes to withdraw the same. Dismissed, as withdrawn. is 6184/2001. 2. It is an application filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment to the objection to the grant of Probate. It is contended by counsel for the applicant/defendant that respondent No. 2 filed detailed objections in the Probate proceedings alleging forgery and falsification of the Will. However, a pertinent and relevant objection pertaining to the ownership of Vasant Vihar house which was relevant was left out inadvertently in the objections filed earlier, those Probate proceedings. By the present application, the respondent no. 2 wants to incorporate paragraphs 2A which is to the following effect:- '2A That the Will is forged and fabricated. The Will bequeaths th...
Jaidev Vs. Prasar Bharti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT731
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner claiming to be a social worker has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest petition alleging huge losses caused to the public exchequer as a result of the alleged illegal acts of the respondents.2. The petition is based on a newspaper report published in the Hindustan Times dated 18.10.2000 followed up by reports published on 19.10.2000, 21.10.2000 and also a report published in 'The Week' on 5.11.2000. The petitioner also claims to have made personal enquiries into the matter and it is averred that the petition is based both on the newspaper reports and on the basis of information given to the petitioner.3. The matter in issue relates to a Seriall 'Truck Dhina Dhin' (referred to as the said Seriall) which was telecast on the Doordarshan. The petitioner is seeking a writ directing Central Bureau of Investigation to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against persons stated ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Airport Service
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)534; [2002]255ITR91(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN792(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the air-conditioning plant is an integral part of a bus ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that depreciation on air-conditioner fixed in a bus was allowable at the rate applicable to the bus, instead of the rate applicable to air-conditioner when separate rates of depreciation have been provided for motor vehicles and air-conditioning plant ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows.4. The assessed, a partnershi...
G. Chandrasekar Vs. Csir and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ284
Khan, J.1. Petitioner, facing a departmental inquiry, complained of non-supply of some relied upon documents and filed OA. 1293/99 for that, which was disposed of by Tribunal by order dated 28.11.2000 directing Respondents to call upon enquiry officer to consider his request for supply of copies of these documents and to record brief reasons if any document was not found relevant. 2. It appears that later Enquiry Officer directed supply of some documents to him. He, however, at the same time informed him that some additional documents could not be made available and produced for inspection vide order/communication dated 20.5.99. 3. Petitioner fell aggrieved of this and filed CP. No. 69/2000 complaining of breach of Tribunal order dated 28.11.2000. Tribunal dismissed his petition taking the view that this did not constitute a deliberate defiance of its order. Hence this petition.4. L/C for Petitioner, Mr. Venkatramani argued that non-availability of documents in question would cause a s...
Cit Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)559
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard at the instance of revenue, following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :(1) '(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 that commission paid by the assessed-company to its sole selling agents, M/s Cement Distributors Ltd. was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency and allowable as a deduction?''(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 that no part of the interest payable by the assessed- company on moneys borrowed for its business was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to certain deposits from ...
Shri K.P. Aggarwal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ394
ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. Petitioner joined as a Stenographer in the office of Director General of Audit, Central Revenue, New Delhi on 9th December, 1955 and worked up to 25th February, 1965. he went on deputation to Cement Corporation of India Ltd. on 1st February, 1968 where he got absorbed and his resignation was accepted for the post of Stenographer w.e.f. 1st February, 1968. The petitioner was informed by the respondent that he was entitled to pro-rata pension w.e.f. 9th December, 1985. Vide judgment dated 9th December, 1986, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) & ors. vs . Union of India & ors. : [1987]1SCR497 , issued directions to the Union of India to restore 1/3rd of commuted value of pension with regard to civilian employees after 15 years from the date of retirement w.e.f. 1st April, 1985. These directions were implemented by the Government vide OM dated 5th March, 1987. The benefit of this OM was later on extended vide OM dated 30th Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »