Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments

Hotel Dhanolti Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)82ITD821(Delhi)

1. A number of grounds have been raised in this appeal directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) but at the outset, the learned counsel did not press grounds 1 and 2 pertaining to the decision of the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal ex parte. These are being rejected. All the other grounds pertain to a solitary issue and that being whether the AO in law can make an "adjustment" under Section 143(1)(a) in respect of the assessee's claim to adjust brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income from short-term capital gain under Section 50 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee filed a return showing a carried forward loss of Rs. 2,34,720. This came about as a result of adjustment on account of brought forward losses but which the AO added back in the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) which resulted in a total income of Rs. 40,90,518. According to the AO, brought forward losses could not be set off against income under the head "Capital gains".3. Against the "adjustment", the ...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Singla Rice and Gen. Mills

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)82ITD778(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order passed by CIT(A) in relation to assessment year 1990-91.2. The solitary effective ground projects the grievance of the revenue as under: - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10, 09, 500 on account of capital gain under Section 50.3. Factual matrix of the case: The assessee filed its return disclosing a loss of Rs. 2,41,390. The Assessing Officer made original assessment at Nil income by ignoring the loss declared on the ground that the return was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1).On appeal the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to determine the loss as per law and complete the fresh assessment. Subsequently the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide his order dated 30-3-1994 determining the taxable income at Rs. 7, 68, 110. While doing so he adopted the fair market value of land, building and machinery on...

Sh. Chander Prakash and anr. Vs. J.B. and Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)34; 97(2002)DLT814; 2002(63)DRJ652

R.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code moved on behalf of the appellant seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17-2-2000. The application has been made with the averments that the above referred appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 16-9-1987 and it was admitted by this Court. After that the appellant/applicant neither got any intimation from this Court or from his advocate and the date 17-2-2000 fixed for hearing of the appeal was not in the knowledge of the appellant/applicant. The appellant/applicant learnt about the same when he got inspected the trial court record through his counsel Shri Sharvan Dev, Advocate sometimes in September 2001 and then he learnt about the dismissal of the appeal. Soon thereafter he contacted his counsel and made the present application. The application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant/applicant Shri Chander Prakash. Besides an affidavit of...

Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(2)ARBLR570(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT270; 2002(62)DRJ746

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator as the respondent has failed to approach Indian Council of Arbitrator, New Delhi for appointment of Arbitrator despite being noticed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Multi-cooperative Society working under the aegis of Ministry of Welfare, Government of India and is registered as a Society under the Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent is a proprietorship firm. It took on lease Brehampur Multi Purpose Cooperative Cold Storage Ltd. Ambapuna vide Government of Orissa order No. 3149 dated 1.3.2000 issued by the Registrar of cooperative Societies, Orissa, Bhubneshwar. The petitioner after procuring seeded tamarind for worth of Rs. 90 lakhs entered into an agreement with the respondent for storage of the said stock in latter's cold storage in Orissa. Some disputes have arisen between the parties regarding maintenance of prescribed temperature mentioned in the agreement resulting in deterioration of the stock. T...

Sh. Ram Sawroop Vs. J.B. and Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)139; 97(2002)DLT849; 2002(63)DRJ658

R.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code moved on behalf of the appellant seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17-2-2000. The application has been made with the averments that the above referred appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 16-9-1987 and it was admitted by this Court. After that the appellant/applicant neither got any intimation from this Court or from his advocate and the date 17-2-2000 fixed for hearing of the appeal was not in the knowledge of the appellant/applicant. The appellant/applicant learnt about the same when he got inspected the trial court record through his counsel Shri Sharvan Dev, Advocate sometimes in September 2001 and then he learnt about the dismissal of the appeal. Soon thereafter he contacted his counsel and made the present application. The application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant/applicant Shri Chander Prakash. Besides an affidavit of ...

Sh. Thakur Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)136; 98(2002)DLT213; 2002(63)DRJ649

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage in view of additional affidavit filed by respondent.3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondent in granting compensation of an amount of Rs.3000/- p.m. with effect from 1.4.99 to Group A & B Officers working in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (for short 'MTNL') and denying the same benefits to the petitioners who were recruited by the same authority, placed on the same scales under the common Gradiation List. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are amenable to the same assessing authority and same Departmental Promotion Committee which considers the petitioners for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness as has been done in the case of officials of Group A & B working in MTNL.4. The petitioners are working as Junior Telecom Officers in Northern Telecom Region (in short 'NTR') and Northern Telecom Project (in short 'NTP')....

State (Govt. of Delhi) Vs. Mr. Rajbir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)963; 2002CriLJ3882; 97(2002)DLT950

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Respondents had been tried by the learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi with respect to offences punishable under Sections 174/148/149/452/325/326/307/34 Indian Penal Code.2. The State against the judgment of acquittal, referred to above, and also condensation of delay in filing the same.3. The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that information was received at Police Post Bawana from Police Station Narela that a quarrel was going on at Chowk Bawana. Entry was made in Daily Diary No. 28 on 6.4.1983. Sub Inspector Mahipal Singh, along with members of his police force, went to Bawana Chowk and was informed that injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. SI Mahipal Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital. He obtained the medico legal reports of Jagan Singh, Khazan Singh besides Zile Singh deceased. Khazan Singh had been declared fit to make statement.4. In his statement, recorded by SI Mahipal Singh, he had deposed that on 6.4.1983 at 7.00 p.m. he was p...

Shri Rajesh Parjapat Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)803; 97(2002)DLT993

Khan, (J)1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 127/01 Under Section 420/34 IPC registered at PS Srinivas Puri and Complaint Case No. 137/1/98 titled 'Start Choudhary v. Rajesh Parjapat' pending before MM, New Delhi.2. Both FIR and complaint were lodged against petitioner by one Start Choudhary alleging sale of stolen shares by him for which he claimed return of an amount of about Rs. 1.62 lacs.3. Petitioner's case is that Choudhary had lodged the complaint against him first on 27.7.1997 with SHO concerned but no case was made out and no FIR registered by police. Later he filed a complaint Under Section 156(3) in which MM sought report by order dated 16.3.1998 which was submitted making out no case but Ld. Magistrate had still proceeded on it and allowed complainant to lead evidence. While this complaint was pending trial, respondent/complainant allegedly hobnobbed with SI Sunil Bhardwaj, in charge of PS Sunlight Colony and lodged a report with him on the same subject matter and ...

Ms. Roomi Mehta Vs. Khem Chand and Sons and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 21.2.2002 passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2680/2000 - entitled Ms. Roomi Mehta v. Khem Chand and Sons and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant Ms. Roomi Mehta had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that respondent No. 2, in his capacity as partner of respondent No. 1, was carrying on the business of fruit merchants, commission agents and merchant banking in the name and style of M/s. Khem Chand and Sons (respondent No. 1). It was stated by the appellant that the appellant on 12.6.1999 had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the respondents and the deposit made by her with the respondent was to carry interest @ 2% p.m. ...

Sportking Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT697TriDel

1. Through the present application, the appellants have sought restoration of their appeal which was dismissed vide Final Order No.A/879/2001/NB (D), dated 20-7-2001.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the order was passed ex parte, the same deserves to be recalled and the appeal should be restored to its original number. He has placed much reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in J.K. Synthetics v. CC - 1996 (86) E.L.T.472 (S.C.). But we are unable to accept this contention of the Counsel.The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that none appeared on behalf of the appellants on 20-7-2001. The appeal was decided on merits after going through the record. The appellants availed Modvat credit of the disputed amount on the inputs imported by them under D.E.P.B Scheme free of duty. They were not entitled to the Modvat credit at all and it was observed that the Modvat credit had been rightly disallowed to them. Even the learned Counsel has not disputed that the Modvat c...