Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments

Suresh Jindal Vs. Cwt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN576(Delhi)

By the CourtPetitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 17-9-1977, by which the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of discretion under section 18(2A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and section 18B of the Wealth Tax Act, 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(2A) now section 18B were satisfied, he should not have maintained the penalty of 20 per cent 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 per cent only and has given an indication that this has been done considering the overall circumstances of the case.2. In my view, the petitioner cannot question the discretion exercised by the Commissioner with regard to the extent of waiver. Reference may be usefully invited to a judgment repo...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN338(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. These are 12 references made by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessed and the revenue. In respect of the assessment years 1960-61, 1962-63 to 1966-67, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in its conclusion that the two business activities of the assessed-company, in running the distillery and the sugar factory (now defunct) did not constitute the same business within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Finance Act, 1955 and section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in its conclusion that the assessed is not entitled to the carry-forward and set-off of its loss computed from the sugar factory for ...

Raj NaraIn Agarwal Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Del)90

D.K. Jain, J.Civil Misc No . ......./2002Let 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. Application stands disposed of.IT Ref No. 95/78 4. The Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, 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 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 facts ...

Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(Del)387

ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.In this appeal, the assessed, M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the ONGC), had taken the following grounds of appeal :'1. In the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in fact and in law and in confirming the order of the assessing officer 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 assessed, 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 U...

Cit Vs. Tulsi Bhai Gordhan Bhai Patel

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN337(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the rasoi expenses amounting to Rs. 4,000 in branch at Gondia claimed by the assessed as an admissible deduction by holding that it is not in the nature of entertainment expenses covered by section 37(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the hotel expenses amounting to Rs. 12,912 sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the head office claimed by the assessed as an admissible deduction by holding that it is not in the nature of entertainment expenses covered by section 37(2B) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. Since in the statement of the case, it has been stated that bo...

S.P. Barthwal Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited 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 15.6.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 351/2001 - entitled Shri S.P. Barthwal v. Maruti Udyog Limited and Anr. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Mr. S.P. Barthwal, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant had purchased a Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. DL-6-CE-9956 through respondent No. 2, the authorised dealer of respondent No. 1 on 8.3.1999. It was stated in the complaint filed by the appellant that the appellant visited his native town in Garhwal on 23rd and 24th April, 1999, where he had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of his younger brother. It was stated that on 24.4.1999 when the appellant ...