Delhi Court August 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.
Brig. V.K. Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2010[17]STR451
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Within three months the petitioner is back to this Court as this writ petition is the second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed CWP. No. 2459/2002 in which he had averred that the petitioner is a Brigadier who was commissioned in the Indian Army as Second Lieutenant in the year 1967. He was promoted to the rank of Brigadier on 8th January, 1996. Certain irregularities were alleged against him and by order dated 3rd November, 1999 the Court of Inquiry against the petitioner was convened. This inquiry was concluded in June, 2000. However, nothing happened for quite some time. Thereafter vide Order dated 13th February, 2002 disciplinary action against the petitioner was initiated by conducting hearing of the charge proceedings under Army Rule 22 by GOC 9 Inf. Div. (the Commanding Officer of the petitioner) under whom the petitioner was attached and he ordered the evidence to be reduced to writing.2. The petitioner averred in earlier as ...
M.R. Narayanan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1472; 2003(66)DRJ48
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This petition has been posted before Division Bench pursuant to the order passed on 7.2.2002 by learned Single Judge saying that there is conflict of views in judgments dated 26.11.2001 in Cr.R.638/2001 titled as Mrs. Rajeshwari Verma and Anr. v. State; Sarkar Saheb v. State : 93(2001)DLT585 and Vansh Bahadur Singh v. State 1998 (2) JCC 39.2. Facts giving rise to the reference may be stated in short. On the complaint dated 25.11.99 of Tej Bhan Sharma FIR No. 42/2001 dated 16.1.2001 was registered at P.S. Hauz Khas for offences under Section 406/420 IPC. The complainant alleged that the accused had cheated him to the tune of Rs. 65,00,000/- by representing himself as a renowned builder and thereby inducing the complaint to invest a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- for purchasing property bearing No. FC-59, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi and further allured the complainant that he will gain double the amount within one year and also assured that in case his promise proves otherwis...
Devender Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT516
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 9.6.1998 and 10.6.1998 convicting the appellant under Sections 364A and 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 364-A, IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that:'on 25.11.1994 deceased Amit left his house at about l2 in the day did not come back where after search continued for him for the next two days, but to no avail. On 28.11.1994, Shri...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)111
ORDERK.C. Singhal, J.M.Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issues arising out of these appeals relate to the recovery of tax of Rs. 11,93,101 under section 201 on account of non-deduction of tax at source under section 195 as well as the levy of interest of Rs. 9,09,730 under section 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act').2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are these : The assessed is a company which was incorporated in India on 24-2-1989, to carry on the business of snacks, foods, beverages, agricultural research and export, etc. It entered into an agreement on 21-6-1989, with Pepsi Co. Inc., USA (Pepsi Co. in short), under which Pepsi Co. was required to transfer the technology regarding varietal improvement of fruits, vegetables and oil seeds as well as manufacture, packing and distribution of processed potato foods, grain goods, fruit products and vegetable products, and also man...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Diljinder Shivdayal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)387
1. At the instance of the assessed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi (for short the Tribunal) has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the following question, arising out of ITA No. 5180/Del/1984 for the asst. yr. 1980-81, for our opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rental income from the house property in question was assessable in the hands of the assessed under the head 'Income from house property' and not as 'Income from other sources '2. Since in our opinion answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. and Ors. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , it is not necessary to state the facts. In the said decision it has been held that for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act, the requirement of registration of sale deed is not warranted. It is observed that having regard to the ground rea...
National Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN413(Delhi)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 30-4-2001. This court admitted the appeal on 19-12-2001 and framed the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not allowable to the appellant-company in respect of property purchased from Punjab Financial Corporation ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing Rs. 75,000 out of sales promotion expenses in the absence of any material to support it ?'2. The relevant facts for deciding the controversy involved in the case are briefly stated as under.3. The appellant-assessed was engaged in the business of bottling and marketing of Indian made foreign liquor. The appellant also started the business of manufacturing liquor by taking over the factory at Dera Basti from the Punjab Financial Corpn. By the agreement dated 26-3-1996, an amount of Rs. 7,25,00...
Cit Vs. M. Mathur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN751(Delhi)
ORDERAt the instance of the assessed (sic), the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following question, arising out of IT Appeal No. 3198 (Delhi) of 1984 for the assessment year 1981-82, for our opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income from the flats for which there is no registered deed in favor of the assessed is assessable under the head 'Income from property' and not 'Income from other sources' ?'2. Since in our opinion answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , it is not necessary to state the facts. In the said decision, it has been held that for the purpose of section 22 of the Act, the requirement of registration of sale deed is not warranted. It is observed that having regard to the ground realities and the object o...
Cit Vs. Dr. S.K. Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN732(Delhi)
At the instance of the assessed, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following question, arising out of IT Appeal Nos. 4438 and 4439 (Delhi) of 1985 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, for our opinion.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rental income from flat in a multi-storeyed building is assessable in the hands of the assessed under the head 'lncome from house property'?'2. Since in our opinion answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , it is not necessary to state the facts. In the said decision, it has been held that for the purpose of section 22 of the Act, the requirement of registration of sale deed is not warranted. It is observed that having regard to the ground realities and the object of the Act, namely, t...
Cit Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN747(Delhi)
By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following questions, stated to be one of law, for our opinion.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to interest under sections 214 and 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on advance tax refunded to the assessed as a result of appellate order ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India : [1981]130ITR928(Delhi) was binding on the Income Tax Officer even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted interim stay of the judgment and order of the High Court ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. Since in our op...
Cit Vs. Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN651(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the assessed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following question, arising out of ITA. No. 2635/Del/1984 for the assessment year 1979-80, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rental income from flat in a multi-storeyed building is assessable in the hands of the assessed under the head 'Income from house property' even though the assessed had not acquired legal title to the ownership of the said property through a registered sale deed in her favor?'2. Since in our opinion answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , it is not necessary to state the facts. In the said decision it has been held that for the purpose o...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »