Delhi Court July 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.
M.C.D. Vs. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT679; 2003(69)DRJ256
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6.7.2000 setting aside the impugned assessment order and remanding back to be decided by the Assessing Authority. The basis of the judgment of the Appellate Authority of learned ADJ is that it is the purchase price of the property which has been taken into consideration and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lt. Colonel P.R. Chaudhary (Retd.) etc. v. M.C.D. and Ors. 85 (2000) DLT 223, has not been followed. It is specifically noted in the impugned order that the principle of parity as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been followed by the Assessing Authority.2. It may be noted that the present petition has been filed more than two years after the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and thus, in my considered view, would suffer from culpable* delays and laches which itself would disentitle the petitioner to any relief.3. I, however, consider...
Flora Bose Vs. Suprotik Bose
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT200; II(2002)DMC775
ORDER1. The letters patent appeal arises out of an order dated 9th July, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 163/97 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein had been dismissed in liming. By reason of the said appeal the appellant herein had questioned the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HCM No. 680/92 dismissing an application for dissolution of marriage filed under Section 13-1 (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. A first appeal is a matter of right. On the date fixed for hearing of the said appeal even the caveator was not present. Learned Single Judge had no opportunity to go through the materials on record, particularly the evidence adduced by the parties in the absence of records of the learned Trial Court. In the afore-mentioned situation, we are of the opinion that the said appeal ought not to have been dismissed in liming. Further more, no reason has been assigned in support of the said order. For th...
inndev Engineers (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi478
ORDERR.C. Chopra, J. 1. The short question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent No. 1, Delhi Vidyut Board can withdraw the supply of electricity to a consumer on account of non-clearance of arrears in respect of a different connection, at a different premises and in the name of a different consumer.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner-Company incorporated in the year 1996 is having its factory at B-6, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi. It gets its electricity supply from K. No. 014-5765296/1P/IS/H0009 which is in the name of previous owner of property. The two Directors of the petitioner-Company, namely Dutt Kumar and Sarla Kumar, are the Directors of M/s. S. D. Technical Services Private Limited also, which was having its factory at B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi. The electricity supply to the said factory was from K. No. XI 1925. This K. number was in the name of M/s. Ram...
Mayor International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT891TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant made an import of "Rubber Basket Balls". The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and order to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the ground that the importation of the goods is prohibited as per Clause V of Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964. The personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed.3. The contention of the appellant is that the Clause V of the Notification No. 1/64-Cus., was omitted by Notification No.61/2000-Cus., dated 10-10-2000. Therefore, the order invoking the Clause V of Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 is not sustainable.4. In this case by invoking of Clause V of Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 the impugned order was passed. The Clause V of the notification is reproduced below ; "The Clause V of the Notification prohibits the import of the goods made...
Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC643Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Sheet glass. A duty demand of over Rs. 28 lakh have been confirmed against them on the ground that the appellants should have paid Central Excise Duty on a value inclusive of the cost of wooden packing in which the glass sheets are supplied.2. The appellants submission is that wooden boxes/crates are secondary packing used only in the interest of protection during transport.Normal packing of the goods is only in paper & crates etc. Appellants have also submitted that a portion of the goods (11%) are actually sold at factory gate without packing in wooden boxes/crates. Thus, showing that wooden packing is optional and not the normal packing. They have also pointed out that the Commissioner was in error in assuming that the appellants were availing of modvat credit in respect of wooden packing and for that reason their value of wooden packing is required to be included in the assessable value. They have also relied on the decision of this Tribu...
B.L. Bagai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT733
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner Mr. B.L. Bagai had applied for the allotment of a petrol pump site between Vasant Kunj, Andheria Mor and Maksoodpur in pursuance to an advertisement in the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' and appearing at page 25 of the paper book. By this advertisement, Indian Oil Corporation had invited applications from candidates who were freedom fighters. Various conditions of eligibility were set out. The applicants interalia were required to be resident of Delhi for a period of 5 years, the family income should not be more than 50,000/- etc.3. The petitioner, late Mr. B.L. Bagai himself, was an applicant. Petitioner aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Board, by which respondent No. 4 one Mr. Kishan Gopal was appointed filed this petition. Unfortunately, Mr. B.L. Bagai passed away on 7.2.2001. Writ petition had in between been dismissed twice, but had since been restored. The app...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-xvi Vs. Shri R.V. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT610
D.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 21 November 2001, passed in ITA No. 7077/Del/1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92, for determination of the following questions of law: A. 'Whether ITAT was correct in law in treating the amount of Rs. 7,58,250.00, being the profit made by assessed on sale of apartments, as long term capital gain?' B. 'Whether ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT Appeals and thereby holding that the profit was accrued to the assessed on sale of portion of land on which the flats are constructed and not on account of cost of construction, where there was a single agreement for sale of flats?' C. 'Whether ITAT was correct in law in upholding the observation made by CIT Appeals that the transaction of sale of flats was not in the nature of any business tran...
Smt. Uzma Khanam Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT661
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This petition has been adjourned at the request of counsel for the petitioner since October, 2001. On 9.10.2001, it was adjourned to 28.1.2002 and thereafter to 10.4.2002. Again adjournment was sought on account of non availability of Mr. K.S. Bindra, counsel for the petitioner. In the interest of justice, matter was again adjourned for today. Today none appeared for the petitioner initially. However, subsequently Mr. Manjit Singh Ahluwalia appeared after lunch. At his request, he was heard.2. Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ directing the respondent to quash the allotment made to respondent No. 5 and allot the LPG distributorship to the petitioner. The LPG distributorship is for the territory of Bugrasi, District Bulandsharr (U.P.).3. Respondent Indian Oil Corporation has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action has arisen within th...
Director of Income-tax Vs. Dalmiya Jan Kalyan Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR95(Delhi)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated July 11, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in I. T. A. No. 795/Delhi of 1996 pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The Assessing Officer had disallowed exemption to the assessed-trust under Section 11 of the Act mainly on the ground that the assessed had failed to prove the genuineness of the donations received by it from various persons, inasmuch as the donors were not produced for examination.3. While allowing the assessed's appeal against the said order by the Assessing Officer and directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption to the assessed under Section 11 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has dealt with all the subject donations and has recorded a categorical finding that all the relevant details, including the addresses of the donors were furnished to the Assessing Officer. In fact, the...
Cit Vs. R.V. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN191(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. This is an appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, dated 21-11-2001, passed in IT Appeal No. 7077 (Delhi) of 1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92, for determination of the following questions of law :'1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in treating the amount of Rs. 7,58,250.00, being the profit made by assessed on sale of apartments, as long-term capital gain ?2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereby holding that the profit was accrued to the assessed on sale of portion of land on which the flats are constructed and not on account of cost of construction, where there was a single agreement for sale of flats ?3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »