Delhi Court July 2002 Judgments

Director of Income Tax Vs. Sindhi Panchayat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN23(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. CM 59 of 2002Allowed subject to just exceptions. IT Appeal No. 139 of 20022. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 31-10-2001 in IT Appeal No. 1243 (Delhi) of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91.3. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are :While completing assessment for the relevant assessment year, the assessing officer disallowed exemption to the assessed under section 11 of the Act on solitary ground that audit report under section 12AB of the Act was not furnished along with the return. The assessment was also completed under section 144 of the Act.4. Aggrieved by the said action of the assessing officer, the assessed-trust preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). While holding that the assessed was entitled to exemption under section 11, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the stand of the assessed that a detailed a...

Ved Parkash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)604

D.K. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of a circular issued by the Dy. CIT to the Land Acquisition Collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. It is also prayed that the Collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of said circular.2. According to the petitioner, since the amount of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source.3. The issue raised in the petition is no longer rest integra. In Bikram Singh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. : [1997]224ITR551(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that the interest receipt on delayed payment of the compensation, determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Ac...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Harjinder Singh Arora

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 22.1.2002, passed by District Forum No. III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1566/2000 - entitled Shri Harjinder Singh Arora v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts relevant, for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, Sh. Harjinder Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that the complainant was a consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. JP-802-1358084 and was receiving normal bills in respect of consumption of electricity which were being paid by him in time. It was stated that in May, 2000, the respondent received an excessive bill for Rs. 20,892.69 for the commercial use of the electricity without any prior notice. It was stated that on inquiry, the respondent was told tha...

M.K. JaIn Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

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 22.3.2002, passed by District Forum No. III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 219/2001 - entitled Shri M.K. Jain v. Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Sh. M.K. Jain, in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Raghubir Enterprises, A-201, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that electricity connection bearing No. K-013-1421778 with load of 7.5 KW had been sanctioned in his favour and he had been paying the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the above said electricity connection regularly to the respondent. It was stated that an illegal demand of Rs. 86,211.22 was raised by the respondent...

Rakesh Gulati and anr. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(105)LC678Tri(Delhi)

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common Order-in-original dated 14.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The facts out of which the present appeals arise, briefly are as under: On 18.9.2000 acting on a specific information, the officers of DRI, New Delhi visited the godown situated at B-4/35A, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi. The godown was found locked and enquiries from neighbourhood by the officers did not provide any clue about the owner of the godown. The officers broke open the lock of the godown in the presence of the witnesses. During the process of search, one person namely Sanjay Jain arrived there and claimed himself to be the owner of the godown. He also told the officers that he had allowed the user of the godown to his friend Rakesh Gulati (appellant No. 1), as a gesture of goodwill to store his goods. As a result of the search, 340 sets of crockery of ARCOPAL brand (made in France) and 734 sets of crockery of AR...

Garg Forgings and Castings Ltd., Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC800

1. Appellants filed these appeal, against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cycle parts forgings and auto parts forgings. The cycle parts forgings are exempted from payment of excise duty, whereas auto parts forgings are liable to pay exemption duty. The premises of appellants firm was visited by the Excise officers from 8.6.93 to 10.6.93. On physical verification of the stock, it was found that certain quantity of auto parts forgings were not accounted for in their statutory record and certain quantity of auto parts forgings were cleared without payment of duty. It was also found that appellants cleared the scrap and raw material in contravention to the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice dated 3.12.93 was issued to the appellants and the adjudicating authority confirm the demand and imposed the penalty. The appellants filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the...

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Kukar Sons and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC37

1. Rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 4 today in Court is taken or record. Copy furnished to the Counsel opposite.2. Notice to 5th respondent was also taken already by publication in the newspaper and none has put in appearance on behalf of 5th respondent.3. Heard arguments of both the sides on the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O. A. No. 506/ 97 on 17.10.2001. The appellant is the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and has filed Misc.Application No. 382/2001 under Section 20(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for condoning the delay.4. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant stated that the copy of the impugned order was not served upon the applicant/appellant but the applicant/appellant got a copy of the order on 27.10.2001 when the defendants in...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004ACJ134; 99(2002)DLT307; 2002(64)DRJ249

R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellant Insurance Company assails the orders dated 23.2.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in S.No. 625/95 by which a compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum was awarded in favor of the respondents-claimants on account of the death of deceased Gurdeep Singh in a road accident on 15.4.1995. The appellant-Insurer has assailed the quantum of compensation solely on the ground that the deceased was unmarried and the respondents-claimants are his mother and younger sisters and brother but the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to them without taking into consideration that the deceased was likely to get married and thereafter the financial support to the respondents-claimants was likely to be reduced to a considerable extent.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondents-claimants, the mother and younger sisters and brother of deceased Gurdeep Singh, had filed a pet...

Dinesh Ahluwalia, Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ980; 99(2002)DLT387; I(2003)DMC4; 2002(64)DRJ427

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioners assail the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by virtue of which the learned court passed an order admitting the petitioners to anticipatory bail but subject to the condition that they shall deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs as fixed deposit receipt on Indian Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi in the name of the court in two Installments of Rs.1.25 lakhs each. The deposit had to be made without prejudice to the rights of the parties and respondent-wife of Dinesh Ahluwalia, would only be entitled to the amount, if any, after adjudication of her claim.2. Some of the relevant facts are that Dinesh Ahluwalia was married to respondent Ms. Roopa Ahluwalia. The marriage was solemnised some time in February1992 at Calcutta. Petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of Roopa Ahluwalia and petitionerno.3 is the father-in-law of the complainant Roopa Ahluwalia. Both the petitioner no.1 and his wife/respondent (Roopa Ahluwalia) are working in Indian Airlines. Pet...

Subhash Chand Chauhan Vs. State Thr. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT128

ORDER1. Through this application under Section 389, Cr.P.C. read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks suspension of the sentence awarded to him by learned Special Judge vide impugned judgment dated 3rd June, 2002 and order of sentence dated 4.6.2002. Petitioner was ordered to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 120B, IPC, Section 7 and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Heard.3. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail throughout the trial and has not abused the concession granted to him. This fact is admitted by the learned Counsel for the State also. thereforee, I think, the request of the petitioner should be accepted.4. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is ordered that substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount ...