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.
Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD151(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the assessee, M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Dehradun (ONGC), had taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. In the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law and in confirming the order of the AO on the point of foreign exchange loss suffered on foreign loans attributable to revenue account. 2. The appellant craves to take any other ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 1.2. At the instance of the assessee, a Special Bench was constituted to consider the following question : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additional liability arising on account of fluctuations in the rate of exchange in respect of loans taken for revenue purposes could be allowed as deduction in the year of fluctuations in the rate of exchange or the same could only be allowed in the year of repayment of such loans." 1.3. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd., whose appeals involving the above issues are pending before ...
Shri Suresh Jindal Vs. the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi - V and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT405
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 17.9.1977, by which Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of discretion under Section 18(2A) of the Wealth Tax of 1957 and Section 18B of the Wealth Tax Act of 1957 reduced the penalty levied. The ground taken in the writ petition is that once the Commissioner had reached a conclusion that the requisite conditions of Section 18(2)(A) now Section 18 were satisfied, he should not have maintained the penalty of 20% and waived the same completely. Petitioner also questions the virus of the said section, while claiming the benefit under the same section. The Commissioner in his discretion has waived the penalty up to 20% only and has given an indication that this has been done considering the overall circumstances of the case.In my view, the petitioner cannot question the discretion exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax with regard to the extent of waiver. Reference may be usefully invited to a judgment rep...
Technology Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Presiding Office ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT184; 2002(64)DRJ282
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Respondent NO. 3 who is the member of the petitioner society file a claim petition under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act (in short 'DSC Act') with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies sometime in 1993. The matter was referred for adjudication to the Arbitrator.2. There were three claims preferred by Respondent No. 3. Firstly that the actual cost of the flat allotted to him was escalated by 27% in comparison to the estimated cost and that the cost of the flat is not based on the basis of actual area of the flat between the main sliding door and the peripheral outside walls. Second claim was that there were number of defects in the flat allotted to him and thereforee the petitioner society may be directed to get the said defects removed and to reconcile the cost of the flat. Third grievance was against levying penal interest on call money by the petitioner society. According to the petitioner since there is no provision in the society's bye-laws in ...
Shri Banarsi Dass Sodhi Vs. Shri Om Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT608; 2002(64)DRJ515
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( herein after referred to as the 'Act' only) is directed against an order dated 3.8.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent controller, Delhi by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was allowed and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the Trial Court Records.3. The only ground on which the impugned eviction order stands challenged is that the plea of bonafide need, as raised by the respondent before the Trial Court, was not made out in as much as the evidence on record had shown hat after the issuance of eviction notice the respondent had converted two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor of his house into three shops shown 'A' 'B' and 'C' in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Out of these three shops one shop...
Amrit Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT412
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This petition was dismissed by order dated 5.4.2002 for non-prosecution. Petitioner thereafter filed C.M.4968/2002 for its restoration. While this application was being considered, both parties agreed for disposal of this petition on merits.2. Petitioner a Class-II contractor was registered with CPWS in 1991. His enlistment was revalidated from time to time and last such revalidation ended on 28.2.2001. He sought its extension but respondents refused to grant it on the ground that he had failed to obtain requisite marks in terms of procedure provided for such revalidation under Office Memorandum (in short 'O.M.') dated 27.6.1995. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this petition on the ground that respondent had wrongly assessed his performance and declined revalidation of enlistment.3. The procedure for revalidation of enlistment has been broadly mentioned in O.M. dated 27.6.1995. Under the aforesaid O.M., a contractor is required to submit along with his application a li...
Shri R.C. Abrol and anr. Vs. Rc Abrol and Co. (P) Ltd. Through Officia ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas637(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This company appeal is against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 1981, dismissing the CA. No. 514 of 1981 in CP. No. 19-D of 1966, filed by the appellants under Section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The appellants had sought the quashing of a complaint No. 13/A of 1977 filed by the old before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi under Section 538 and 541 of the Act.2. The appellants have sought to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the application under Section 443(3) of the Companies Act and it is contended that a complaint under Section 538 and 541 of the Act did not lie against the appellants as they had taken all steps to reconstruct the record as per the directions of the Hon'ble Company Judge and for that purpose has sought to rely upon the following observation of the learned Company Judge made in the Order dated 14.1.1980:'To take steps at his costs for the re...
National thermal Power Corporation Vs. Hind Calvanising Engg. Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas628(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 9, 1995. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:2. In the year 1985 the appellant, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (for short 'NTPC Ltd'), awarded the contract for laying of transmission line for Korba Bhilai-II to respondent No.1, Hind Galvanizing and Engineering Company Ltd. (for short 'the HGEC Ltd'). On May 15, 1992, the HGEC Ltd. filed a petition for winding up of the appellant company for non-payment of a sum of Rs. 42,94,325/- which according to the former became due and payable to it by the latter under the contract.3. While proceedings before the learned Company Judge were pending, the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited And the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition And Transfer Of Power Transmission Systems) Ordinance, 1993, was promulgated. Subsequently the Ordinance was ...
Benson Industries Vs. Itat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN748(Delhi)
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11-3-1977, passed by the Tribunal, 'A' Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Tribunal by the impugned order declined to draw up a statement of case and referred under-mentioned questions as questions of law :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally right in estimating the income of the assessed at Rs. 20,000 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estimate of income of the assessed at Rs. 20,000 by the Tribunal is correct ?3. The Tribunal was of the view that no question of law arises in the above two questions. The ex parte assessment made, which had been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, was reduced by the Tribunal in its wisdom and estimate on consideration of all the circumstances. None is present on behalf of the petitioner. ...
Raj NaraIn Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR720(Delhi)
D. K. Jain, J.1. Let a number be assigned to the application.2. By this application the petitioner prays for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased assessed, namely, Shri Raj Narain Agarwal.3. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased assessed are brought on record. Let the amended memo of parties' names be filed during the course of the day.4. Application stands disposed of.I. T. R. No. 95 of 1978 :The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 41,689 being the interest payable by the assessed to the Income-tax Department under Sections 220(2) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 5. Briefly stated, the material...
Cit Vs. Ram Lal Hiralal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN593(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of interest of Rs. 11,223 credited to the account of Jagdish Chand (HUF) and Rs. 9,554 in the account of Hiralal (HUF) in the firm's books on the ground that section 40(b) did not apply to the interest credited to the aforesaid two accounts?'2. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. Since answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT : [1997]223ITR825(SC) , we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as under :'Explanation 2 to section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of clause (b) of section 40, is declaratory...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »