Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Now ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT221; 2002(64)DRJ109
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Although it is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') to refer the question set out therein for the opinion of this Court but in view of the fact that there is no dispute on facts found by the Tribunal and the question raised is a pure question of Law, we dispense with a formal statement of facts; treat the petition as a regular reference and proceed to answer the question proposed.2. The question posed for consideration of this Larger Bench is, as to whether even for a mere change of opinion by the Income-tax Officer (in short 'ITO') action under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be brought into operation.3. With a view to advert to the said question, the factual matrix bereft of all unnecessary details may be noticed:-4. The assessment year under reference is 1987-88. The relevant previous year is 1st July 1985 to 30th June 19...
In Re: Inchcape India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ723
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 518 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') is filed seeking the determination of amount of income-tax which may be payable by the petitioner-company so as to repatriate the amount pursuant to the resolution of voluntary winding-up of the company passed on 10-7-2000 by the AGM of the shareholders of the company. It is also submitted that the only assets of the company arc as under :(a) Rs. 35 lakhs lying in current account in Sanwa Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi.(b) Certificate of deposit of Rs. 1,65,00,000 (maturity vlaue) with Sanwa Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi.(c) Certificate of deposit of Rs. 3,35,00,000 (maturity value) with Bank of Nova Scotia, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.2. Section 518 reads as under :'Power to apply to Court to have questions determined or powers exercised.--(1) The liquidator or any contributory or creditor may apply to the Court-- (a) to determine any question arising in the winding-up of a company; or(b...
Rama Hing Suppliers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR306(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the reassessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that there was no material before the Department for coming to the conclusion that the matter required reassessment. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that because of this writ petition, the proceedings in appeal were stayed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and he will be satisfied in case a direction is given to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide this appeal within the time fixed by this court.2. In view of the submissions made and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed of the remedy of appeal by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the order of reassessment, in my view, it will not be proper for this court to interfere with the order directing reassessment. However, since the appeal is...
Cit Vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)617
S. B. Sinha, C. J.Although it is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') to refer the question set out therein for the opinion of this court but in view of the fact that there is no dispute on facts found by the Tribunal and the question raised is a pure question of law, we dispense with a formal statement of facts; treat the petition as a regular reference and proceed to answer the question proposed.2. The question posed for consideration of this larger Bench is, as to whether even for a mere change of opinion by the Income Tax Officer action under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be brought into operation.With a view to advert to the said question, the factual matrix bereft of all unnecessary details may be noticedThe assessment year under reference is 1987-88. The relevant previous year is 1-7-1985, to 30-6-19...
In Re Inchcape India (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)198
Mukul Mudgal, J.This petition under section 518 of the Companies Act is filed seeking the determination of amount of income-tax which may be payable by the petitioner company so as to repatriate the amount pursuant to the resolution of voluntary winding up of the company passed on 10-7-2000, by the annual general meeting of the shareholders of the company. It is also submitted that the only assets of the company are as under :(a) Rs. 35,00,000 lying in current account in Sanwa Bank, Connaught Place New Delhi.(b) Certificate of Deposit of Rs. 1,65,00,000 (maturity value) with Sanwa Bank Connaught Place, New Delhi.(c) Certificate of deposit of Rs. 3,35,00,000 (maturity value) with bank of Nova Scotia, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.Section 518 of the Companies Act reads as under :'Power to apply to court to have questions determined or powers exercised(1) The liquidator or any contributory or creditor may apply to the court.(a) to determine any question arising in the winding up of a company...
Rama Hing Suppliers Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN800(Delhi)
ORDERBy way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that there was no material before the department for coming to the conclusion that the matter required reassessment. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that because of this writ petition, the proceedings in appeal were stayed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he will be satisfied in case a direction was given to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide this appeal within the time fixed by this court.2. In view of the submissions made and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed of the remedy of appeal by filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of reassessment, in my view, it will not be proper for this court to interfere with the order directing reassessment. However, since the appeal is pending for quite ...
Raj Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC879Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have filed these appeals assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming demand of Special Additional Duty of Customs amounting to Rs. 29,702/-and Rs. 38,499/-, directing payment of interest at a rate of 24% and imposing penalty of Rs. 28,702/- and Rs. 38,499/-.2. The facts of the cases briefly are that the appellants imported 48.375 MTs Onion from Pakistan during Sept. and Oct. 1998, They filed Bills of Entry and claimed exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs in terms of Notification No. 34/98-Cus., dated 13-6-98 as amended by Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98 by filing a declaration as provided in the notification. One of the conditions of the notification was that the goods shall be exempt from payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs only if the same were not sold from a place where no tax was chargeable on sale or purchase of goods.Enquiries conducted revealed that Onion and Garlic are sales tax free under the Punj...
Mark Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC599
1. These two appeals have been filed against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), by the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants were receiving the services under Goods Transport Operators Services in relation to the carriage of the goods by road and were registered with the central excise department for collecting service tax in terms of Notification No. 73/79-ST, dated 5-11-97. They, however, filed refund claim of Rs. 39,018/- which they earlier deposited as service tax, after the pronouncement of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti and Ors. v. Union of India, [1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.)], dated 27-7-99 holding the provisions of Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii) as ultra vires and quashed the same. The refund claim of the appellants was accordingly sanctioned but meanwhile the Central Government amended the service tax rules in the Finance Act, 2000 and gave retrospective effect to the amendment vide which th...
Fcc Rico Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT478TriDel
1. M/s. FCC Rico Ltd. have filed this appeal along with an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty Shri B.L. Narshimhan, ld. Counsel submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Auto parts like clutch assembly, fly wheel components, disk components etc. The appellants removed 13 sets of dies in their factory. These 13 dies were removed to the premises of M/s.Rico Auto Industries Ltd. M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. used these dies for manufacture of various components and cleared the components on payment of appropriate Excise Duty. The Department alleged that since the appellants were not receiving any raw material from the principal manufacturer, therefore, M/s. FCC Rico Ltd. were not job worker of M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Therefore, they were asked to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed on them. Ld. Counsel submits...
A.K. Sharma Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)12; AIR2002Delhi357; 98(2002)DLT738; 2002(64)DRJ204
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Appellant No.1 is a shareholder in Appellant No.2 which is an unlisted public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Appellant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Company) is in the aviation business and operates a non-scheduled air transport service, an air taxi service and an agricultural spraying service. It has a fleet of 8 helicopters and 2 planes and carries on its operations from 5 bases located at Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar and Shimla. It claims to permanently employ about 200 persons for its operations throughout the year. The investment of the Appellant Company in the aircrafts, equipment and facilities is said to be approximately Rs. 100 crores and its annual overheads for maintaining its operations is said to be Rs. 25-30 crores.2. The Appellant Company had three licenses or permits for carrying on its aviation business. These permits, issued under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Aircraft Rules...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »