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.
Pawan Mehta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT566
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. The appellants were held guilty under Sections 18 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act'), in the case FIR No. 137/89, P.S. Karol Bagh, and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default, further imprisonment for one year each, by the judgment and order dated 9th November, 2000, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Appeals against the said judgment and order have already been admitted. This order will dispose of their applications under Section 389, Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal and for being released on bail.2. Facts necessary for the disposal of these applications are: on 17th April, 1989 at about 11.45 a.m. secret information was received at P.S. Karol Bagh that a white colour maruti car would be passing through the area with huge quantity of opium. The information (Ex. PW7/A) was reduced into writing and raiding party was put in position. M...
Cit vs. M.M.T.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: [2001]120TAXMAN802(Delhi)
ORDERHeard.2. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964:'Whether the Tribunal has been in error in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order directing the Surtax Officer to treat the provision of staff gratuity amounting to Rs. 60,00,279 as a reserve for the purpose of computing capital to determine surtax liability in respect of assessment year 1974-75 ?'Instead of answering the question referred, in our view, it would be appropriate if the Tribunal re-hears the matter, keeping in view the guidelines indicated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. : [1996]219ITR388(SC) 3. Reference is, accordingly, disposed of....
British Airways Plc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)80ITD90(Delhi)
1. Both the parties are in appeal against the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessment years being 1996-97 to 1998-99. The following connected common grounds are raised in both the appeals : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred on facts and in law in :- (i) upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the receipts from engineering and ground handling services as taxable income in India; (ii) not accepting that the engineering and ground handling services are covered under Article 8 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and UK ('DTAA for short'), and are therefore, taxable only in the country of residence of the Appellant and not in India; (iii) not accepting that the engineering and ground handling services are activities directly connected with the transportation by air of persons, live-stock, goods or mail, and therefore, fall within the meaning of term "operation of aircrafts", t...
Air India Vs. Shyam Antenna Electronic (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT942; 2002(61)DRJ26
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The Air India (hereinafter describe as the plaintiff) has filed the present suit pleading that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of carriage by air of passengers and cargo. The defendant (Shyam Antenna Electronics (P) Ltd.) through its agent Freight Wings Travels (P) Ltd on 12th January, 1991 booked with the plaintiff 11 packages of electronic goods vide the bill dated 12th January, 1991 for Moscow. The shipment consisting of the said packages of electronic goods was received by the cargo department of the plaintiff on 16th January, 1991. As per Government of India regulations consignments have to undergo cooling off period of 36 hours before they could be air lifted on the plaintiff's flight, after the receipt of the consignment by the plaintiff. As per instructions of the defendant the shipment was transferred to the Aeroflot Airlines on 17th January, 1991 for transportation of shipment to Moscow. The defendant by its letter of 24th June, 1991 requested the...
M/S Brij Lal and Sons Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ48
Virender Jain, J.1. I.A. No. 644 of 19962. Counsel for the petitioner says that he does not wish to press the objections filed by the petitioner.3. Dismissed as withdrawn.4. I.A.No.644 of 19965. Objections to the award have been filed by the respondent-objector to claim nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 15, 8, 11, 12 and 13. Most of the objections are frivolous as this court is not to re-appreciate or re-consider the evidence which was led before the arbitrator.6. Ms.Anusya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-objector, has contended that arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings as the arbitrator could not have awarded an amount of Rs.2,05,600/= under claim nos.7 and 15. Under claim no.7 claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,60,000/= on account of compound interest for blocking of money after completion and under claim no.15 claimant claimed 20% compound interest pre-suited and backdated from the actual date of payment till payment was made. The arbitrator has held that the claim f...
Jasmer Singh Sarna and ors. Vs. Electronics Trade and Technology Devel ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ676
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Jasmer Singh Sarna and two others (hereinafter described as plaintiffs) have filed the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.2. The facts alleged are that plaintiffs are owner/landlords f o the property in dispute. The defendant Corporation Ltd.) is a Government of India enterprises. By virtue of the l ease dated 13th June, 1980 the entire property comprising of basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and first floor was let to the defendant for a period of five years. The defendant was given the option to renew the lease and the defendant vide letter of 6th April, 1985 accepted terms and conditions for continuance of the lease for a period of three years. The rent was increased.3. It is asserted that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a notice dated 12th January, 1994 with effect from mid night of 13/14th March, 1994. At the request of defendant, plaintiffs without prejudice to the notice of offered to let the premises at an enhanced rent of...
Dharam Constructions Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ711
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator, respondents-DDA has filed the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940. The award was made by Shri S.C. Kapoor, retired Chief Engineer of C.P.W.D. The arbitrator made the award on 20.3.1993. The award runs into 42 pages.2. In nutshell Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that arbitrator could not have awarded any amount which was covered under Clause 1 under the head 'Additional specifications and Conditions' of the contract. She has assailed the award of a sum of Rs. 51,750/- by the arbitrator under claim no.2 as well as claim no.3 as damages. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-objector has relied upon Ishwar Singh & sons V/s. D.D.A. 1994 (1) A.L.R. 526 as well as Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. V/s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr. 1999 (3) A.L.R. 350 in which it is held:-'In view of the aforesaid law and the facts stated above...
Tihsaa Industries Ltd. Vs. Avg Computers Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT854; 2002(61)DRJ317
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The plaintiff/applicant is seeking interim injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing him from the suit premises i.e. portion comprising of reception cell at ground floor, entire first floor, second floor and third floor of property bearing No. H-66, New Delhi South Extension Part-I as he claims that he is in occupation in independent capacity as a tenant.2. The broad admitted facts are that the defendant No. 1 took the premises of defendant No. 2 on lease by way of registered lease deed dated 1st May, 2000 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45,000/-. However, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 decided to enter a joint venture collaboration agreement for the purpose of carrying on computer centre for education. The said collaboration agreement did not work well and the parties fell apart. Consequently agreement was cancelled by agreement dated 17th July, 2000.3. The Plaintiff has staked its claim of having been accepted and admitted by defendant No. 2 as an independent...
Cit vs. M.M.T.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: [2001]120TAXMAN803(Delhi)
ORDERHeard.2. For the assessment year 1973-74, the following questions have been referred at the instance of the revenue and the assessed for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the accounts styled as 'Staff Benefits Reserves', 'Self Insurance Reserves' and 'Provision for doubtful debts', doubtful advance and doubtful claims' were outside the scope of the Explanationn to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 and the amounts standing to the credit thereof constitute reserves within the meaning of the said Schedule ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that 'Provision for gratuity' was within the scope of the Explanationn to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Pro...
British Airways Plc. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Del)519
ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.Both the parties are in appeal against the consolidated order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the assessment years being 1996-97 to 1998-99. The following connected common grounds are raised in both the appealsAs per assesses grounds :'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) (Commissioner (Appeals)) has erred on facts and in law in :(i) upholding the action of the assessing officer in taxing the receipts from engineering and ground handling services as taxable income in India;(ii) not accepting that the engineering and ground handling services are covered under article 8 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and UK (DTAA for short), and are thereforee, taxable only in the country of residence of the appellant and not in India;(iii) not accepting that the engineering and ground handling services are activities directly connected with the transportation by air of persons, livestock, goods or mail, and thereforee, fall within the meaning of term 'operati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »