Delhi Court January 2002 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.
institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)250; 97(2002)DLT626
A.K. Sikri, J.1.The appellant herein known as `Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India)' has filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause (X) of the Letters Patent of Judicature at Lahore as applicable to Delhi against Order dated 9-1-2002 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. By the said order which has been passed in CM.6240/2001 in CW.3577/2001 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the saidapplication filed by the appellant herein.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition as well as aforesaid CM are stated in some detail by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.Therefore, it may not be necessary to indulge in this exercise all over again. However, still it would be appropriate to recapitulate some of the salient facts to understand the controversy involved in the matter.2. As per the appellant Institute, it is inexistence for over 85 years and is a renowned andrespectable institution which has churned out hundredsand thousands of engineers for the we...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tarifa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT26
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Through notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 5.7.1973 claimants/ respondents land situate within revenue estate of Tughlakabad was acquired for public purpose. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12.8.1975. Award No. 43/78-79 was made by the Collector on 8.2.1979. Feeling dissatisfied reference was sought. The Reference Court held claimants entitled to compensation @ Rs. 31,500/- per bigha. Feeling aggrieved Union of India has preferred appeal (RFA 315/83) seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Cross-objections have been filed by the claimants/respondents claiming further enhancement in the amount of compensation @ Rs. 68,000/- per bigha. The entire land being 19 bids was only, a sum of Rs. 44,650/- has been claimed by way of further enhancement.2. After the reference was decided the claimants filed an application before the Reference Court for allowing benefit of additional so...
Krishan Kumar Thukral Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT528; 2003(3)SLJ273(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 27th March 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (in short the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2693/99, whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.2. The facts of the matter are as under: The petitioner was appointed in Border Roads Organisation as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1968. He made representation for his transfer to any other Organisation located in Delhi on deputation basis. In the year 1985, he was selected for deputation and was directed to join Ministry of Industry. In 1989 he made a representation for permanent absorption in the Border Roads Organisation. His request was acceded to by an order dated 16th October 1989 subject to the condition that he would be placed as junior most employee in the seniority list amongst Lower Division Clerks. The petitioner reached maximum pay scale in the Lower Division Clerk on 1st January ...
J.N. Sahni Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR16(Delhi)
S.B. Slnha, C.J.1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'ITAT') is empowered to recall its order passed on the merits in purported exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the question involved in this writ petition.2.Two appeals came up for consideration before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner herein in relation to two orders of assessment for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, which were allowed.3. The petitioner as also the Department filed two miscellaneous applications. Before the learned Tribunal the parties purported to have brought to its notice the alleged mistake committed by them. It was held :'After hearing the parties we consider that there appears to be some misunderstanding of the factual position arising in the two cases, namely, of Shri Kohli, the other co-debtor, and Shri Sahni, the assessed before us. This seems to be a case of mistake of both of facts and law and this ...
G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR702(Delhi)
1. This petition is directed against the notices issued to the petitioner under Sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the petition itself the reason for issuing the notice under Section 148 has been incorporated. The same reads as under: 'Warranty has wrongly been claimed on provision basis in excess of actual payment by Rs. 23,20,555,' 2. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued because on certain points in connection with the return of income further information is required by the Department. All that the petitioner is agitating before this court can be submitted by filing reply to the notices before the concerned officers. 3. In our considered opinion, the petitioner is not justified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court at this stage. The writ petition is premature and is dismissed as such. 4. C. M. No. 1239 of 2002 is also disposed of accordingly. ...
Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)13; [2002]123TAXMAN802(Delhi)
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the notices issued to the petitioner under Sections 148 and 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In the petition itself the reason for issuing the notice under Section 148 has been incorporated. The same reads as under:'Warranty has wrongly been claimed on provision basis in excess of actual payment by Rs. 10,91,854.'2. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued because on certain points in connection with the return of income further information is required by the Department. All what the petitioner is agitating before this Court can be submitted by filing reply to the notices before the concerned officers.In our considered opinion, the petitioner is not justified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court at this stage. The writ petition is premature and is dismissed as such.Civil Misc. No. 1232 of 2002 is also disposed of accordingly....
Cit Vs. G.K.N. Dirveshafts (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN337(Delhi)
ORDERThis petition is directed against the notices issued to the petitioner under sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the petition itself the reason for issuing the notice under section 148 has been incorporated. The same reads as under :'assessed has made provision of warranty in the balance sheet which does not clearly show that whether it is just a provision or carry forward provision plus current provision minus actual claims. Since, full details have not been filed by the assessed during the course of assessment proceedings, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 50,79,652 shown as provisions in the balance sheet without any specific details has escaped assessment. Issue notice under section 148.'2. Notice under section 143(2) has been issued because on certain points in connection with the return of income further information is required by the department. All what the petitioner is agitating before thi...
Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria and anr. Vs. Gift Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)17
Judgment S.B. Sinha, C.J.The petitioner in this case has questioned the valuation made by the concerned respondents under the provisions of Gift Tax Act. The valuation of the property was made by the second respondent upon issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The proposed valuation of the said property is the subject-matter of the writ petition.2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to state the facts of the case in great details.Suffice to note that the petitioner submitted gift-tax returns for the year 1975-76 including the valuation of his 1/3rd share of the property situate at 8, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi with the first respondent who appointed second respondent as the Valuation Officer. Respondent No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner intimating him about the valuation to be Rs. 4,34,400. The petitioner filed objections and informed that the assessments for the years 1971-72 to 1977-78 were subject-matters of CW No. 649/79 pending in th...
Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria and anr. Vs. Wto and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)501
S.B. Sinha, C.J.In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the valuation made by the second respondent herein purported to be in terms of section 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, dated 8-7-1977, and 20-7-1978, raising whereof fair market value of the property of the petitioner.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an HUF owning several properties including one at 52, Janpath, New Delhi. The said property is a leasehold one. They filed wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1977-78 stating that the property is an old one which is fully tenanted. According to the petitioners the monthly rent received by them was Rs. 1,201.30. Having regard to the re-entry by the Land & Development office is relation to the said property in the year 1975, the same is being realized directly from the tenants by them. The Valuation Officer in his preliminary valuation estimate, capitalized the net income from rent at 6 per cent and allowed a redemption on capital at 5 per cent and determined the capi...
Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN484(Delhi)
The Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of the court in exercise of its power under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,48,437 being expenditure incurred by the company on customers and clients in providing tea, snack, etc., at its various units was in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not eligible for the export markets development allowance under section 35B of the Act in respect of expenditure of Rs. 11,23,227 incurred on freight and cartage for carrying the goods to their destination ?'The mater relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. The learned counsels for the parties accepted tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »