Delhi Court February 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.
Mohan Anand Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)82ITD708(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by CIT(A) on 27-3-1991 in relation to assessment year 1982-83.2. The facts concerning this case are that the assessee was Managing Director of M/s. Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. and Director of M/s.Dior International Pvt. Ltd. Both the companies were controlled by the assessee and the members of his family. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 6th July, 1983 and certain incriminating documents were found and seized from the assessee's premises. Original assessment was made on 17th June, 1985 on total income of Rs. 82,942. The CIT considered the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and resorting to provisions of Section 263, he set aside the order to be framed afresh vide his order dated 9-12-1986. Subsequently assessment was completed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 on 28-2-1989 at Rs. 6, 19, 940.3. The first grievanc...
Prithvey Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)698; 2002CriLJ2874; 96(2002)DLT785
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment the two appeals Prithvey Singh v. State and State v. Davinder Singh and Ors. can conveniently be disposed together because both the appeals arise out of the same alleged incident and the judgment of the trial court dated 29th August, 1980. By virtue of the impugned judgment the learned trial court acquitted Rajbir Singh, Mahavir Singh and Sahdev of the charges against them. Devinder and Prithvey were held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal code. While they were acquitted (Devinder and Prithvey) of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned trial court Prithvey has preferred the appeal referred to above while the State assails the order of the learned trial court acquitting the accused persons with respect to the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Needles...
Atul Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)SLR618
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was working with the Border Security Force Academy Takanpur. The petitioner was relieved from the said Academy on 29th August, 2001 and directed to report to 191 Bn BSF vide movement order dated 29th August, 2001 but failed to joint duty.2. The petitioner on 10-10-2001 submitted application to the President of India through proper channel for acceptance of his resignation from service in terms of Section 8 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with BSF Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act and Rules). In response to the said letter of 10th October, 2001 the Commandant of 1991 Bn BSF addressed a letter to the petitioner dated 30.10.2001 directing him to rejoin duty forthwith and to deposit Rs. 92,984.91 on accounts of training charges as contemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules. The petitioner sent the said amount with a covering letter dated 9.11.2001 but expressed his inability to joint the Bn on medical ground. This was foll...
Rakesh Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT1
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. On the report made by Smt. Prem Aggarwal, owner of flat No. 140, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash, New Delhi, case under Sections 448/420/380, IPC was registered on 27th October, 2001 at P.S. Lajpat Nagar. Submission advanced by Mr. Lutbra is that after tenancy on a monthly rent @ Rs. 8,000/- was created in respect of the said flat, the petitioner No. 1 was handed over possession thereof on 28th July, 2001 and though rent up to August, 2001 had been paid to the complainant/ landlady, she did not issue any rent receipt. His further submission is that 5 post dated cheques for Rs. 30,000/- each were given by petitioner No. 1 to the complainant for buying a car for him and in case trespass into the said flat had been committed on 17th September, 2001 as alleged by complainant, she would not have omitted to state about the same in the notice dated 6th October, 2001 got issued by her to petitioner No. 1. On the other hand, Sh. Soni points out that petitioner No. 1 is invo...
Bandhu Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Additional Chief Metropolitan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR703(Delhi)
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated February 22, 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to drop proceedings initiated by the Department under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on an application made by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in penalty proceedings, the Tribunal has held that sufficient cause has been shown and sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that there has been no willful concealment and consequently no penalty was imposable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of this finding of the Tribunal, no prosecution could be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Department has drawn my attention to Section 278E of the Income-tax Act, where question of means read is left open to the assessed to be dislodged in defense.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parti...
Ravinder JaIn Vs. Central Bureau of Investigations
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ698
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Notice. Mr. Dutt accepts notice on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, there is no loss to the Bank or to the Exchequer and that the roll ascribed to the petitioners is remote. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be given an opportunity to move the regular court for bail and sufficient time be given to him to move the higher court, in the event his bail application is dismissed.3. Learned counsel draws my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Verma v. State and Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1031, where such a direction has been given by the Supreme Court and the case of Sirajuddin explained. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court which is law, learned counsel for CBI has reluctantly acceded.4. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that in the event the petitioner moves an ...
Bandhu Machinery (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN583(Delhi)
ORDERThis revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22-2-2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to drop proceedings initiated by the department under section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) on an application made by the petitioner. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in penalty proceedings, the Tribunal has held that sufficient cause has been shown and sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that there has been no willful concealment and, consequently, the (sic) no penalty was imposable. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that in view of this finding of the Tribunal, no prosecution could be sustained. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent department has drawn my attention to section 278E of the Act, where question of mens rea is left open to the assessed to be dislodged in defense.2. Having heard the lea...
Mohan Anand Vs. Asstt. Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)307
ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.:This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 27-3-1991, in relation to assessment year 1982-83.2. The facts concerning this case are that the assessed was managing director of M/s Kapri International (P) Ltd. and director of M/s Dior International (P) Ltd. Both the companies were controlled by the assessed and the members of his family. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 6-7-1983, and certain incriminating documents were found and seized from the assessed's premises. Original assessment was made on 17-6-1985, on total income of Rs. 82,942. The Commissioner considered the order of the assessing officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and resorting to provisions of section 263, he set aside the order to be framed afresh vide his order dated 9-12-1986. Subsequently assessment was completed by assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 on 28-2-1989, at Rs. 6...
Tata Construction and Projects Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT468TriDel
1. In the show cause notice dated 13-10-95 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur to M/s. Tata Construction & Projects Ltd. (formerly Tata Davy Limited) (hereinafter called as M/s. TDL) it is alleged that they were awarded two contracts for Zinc Refining Plant and Sinter & Gas cleaning plant by M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (hereinafter called as M/s. HZL), Udaipur. It is also alleged that M/s.TDL manufactured/got manufactured on their behalf at Chanderiya site various excisable goods, that from the documents seized from the premises of M/s. HZL at Udaipur and Chanderiya, Dist. Chittorgarh, it was revealed that M/s. TDL manufactured or got manufactured on their behalf various excisable goods which they knew were liable to excise duty. It is alleged that M/s. TDL through suppression of facts and fraudulent manipulation of their documents relating to the contract with an intent to evade duty had contravened the Central Excise Rules and evaded Central Excise duty amounti...
Poddar Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT758TriDel
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No.42/Cus./CHD-2001, dated 21-6-2001 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appellant imported two consignments of Zinc Oxide (rubber grade purity 99.5%) weighing 20,000 Kg. each and filed Bills of Entry No. 2538, dated 23-12-98 and 25-1-99 respectively through Nijjar Clearing and Shipping Agency, Ludhiana for their-clearance at Customs Freight Station, Ludhiana. In both cases the declared value as per invoice dated 13-11-98 and 10-12-98 was US Dollars 740 per M.T. CIF Nhava Shava. The importer has imported the said goods from M/s.Chemtels International Ltd., Hongkong. The assessing officer took the view that the goods are under-valued for the reason that the same supplier supplied a consignment of identical goods under invoice dated 30-10-98 to another importer M/s. Ralco Exports, Ludhiana @ US$ 855 PMT, and differential duty was charged accordingly. Appeal filed by the appellant herein before the Commissioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »