Delhi Court September 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.
Escorts Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)21
D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the assessed, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for our opinion:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of an earlier year could not be allowed to be set off against the income taxed under Section 56 (sic) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in upholding the allowance of only 10% of the total expenditure incurred by the assessed as expenditure for earning the income that was the subject matter of tax?'2. The assessed company, initially incorporated as a public limited company under the name and style of 'CGR India Limited', was engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembling X-ray equipments. However, its business activity st...
Sanjay Kant Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT54
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the IPC. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was working as an accountant of the complainant. During the course of his official duties he misappropriated and embezzled the money of his employer by forging documents. He in all embezzled more than Rs. 5,40,000/-. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in judicial custody since February, 2002 and that the challan has not been filed, CFSL report is still not received and so the charges have not been framed. It is contended that the trial of the case will take long and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in jail. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhingra v. NCT of Delhi, : (2000)9SCC533 has been cited which was a case of cheating of a foreign national of a sum exceeding Rs. 65 lakhs and the Supreme Court prima facie did not find circumstances entitling the accused t...
Bhai Sunder Dass and Sons Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN685(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the assessed, 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, arising out of cross appeals, being IT Appeal Nos. 691 (Delhi) of 1976-77 and 434 (Delhi) of 1977-78, for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow the deduction of only such amounts in respect of commission payable to Miss Nellie Melson during the relevant year, as were allowed to be remitted by the Reserve Bank of India in the relevant year?'2. The factual position, as delineated in the statement of the case, is as under.3. During the relevant previous years, ending on the immediately preceding financial year for each of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the assessed, a Private Limited Company was engaged in the business of manufacture of concrete mixtures, concrete v...
M.C.D. Vs. Ram Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT781; 2003(1)SLJ211(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 4th March, 1996 passed by the learned Labour Court in LC ID No. 298/1988.2. The following question was referred for adjudication:'Whether the services of Shri Ram Kumar, Mali/Beldar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?'3. The respondent/Workman had stated that he had worked in several areas of Delhi including Roshanara Bagh, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone and again in Roshanara Bagh. According to him, he had worked from 5th March, 1985 till 25th June, 1987.4. The petitioner denied that he had worked during the entire period or that he had completed 240 days of work.5. The petitioner produced Sadhu Ram as MW1. However, MW1 produced the muster roll only for a part of period, that is, October and November, 1985. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record that muster roll for the period from July, ...
Meenakshi Vs. Sanjay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ124
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. There is a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal for the condensation of which an application was filed by the appellant. It is submitted in the application that the appellant had given instructions to her counsel to file appeal against the impugned order and apply for certified copy of the same, however, it was only on 3.10.2001 that the appellant was informed by the counsel that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was not applied by the counsel. The appellant is stated to have engaged a new counsel thereafter who applied for certified copy and filed the appeal after certified copy was received. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the negligence of the counsel who was looking after the case of the appellant and was not on account of the negligence of the applicant. Despite service no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent nor reply has been filed. I have, thereforee, no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the ap...
Sita Holiday Resorts Ltd. Vs. Chief Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN693(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. Rule D.B.2. Since a very short point is involved, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, we take up the matter for final disposal.3. An order, dated 10-12-2001, passed by the Chief Commissioner, New Delhi, in pursuance of the notification issued by the Board under section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 23-5-1996 for waiver of interest under sections 234A to 234C of the Act, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has granted partial waiver of the interest charged from the petitioner under section 234B.4. Material facts, leading to the filing of this petition, may be noticed.5. The petitioner, the assessed-company, was incorporated on 3-10-1989. It established a three star village resort called 'the Heritage Village' at Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana, by raising loans from financial institutions and started construction of the hotel in the month of February ...
Escorts Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN718(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the assessed, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of an earlier year could not be allowed to be set off against the income taxed under section 56 (sic) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the allowance of only 10 per cent of the total expenditure incurred by the assessed as expenditure for earning the income that was the subject-matter of tax ?'2. The assessed-company, initially incorporated as a public limited company under the name and style of 'CGR India Limited', was engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembling X-ray equipments. However, its business activity stopped from 1-1-1981 as the ...
Rajender Prasad Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT306; (2003)ILLJ625Del; 2003(1)SLJ97(Delhi)
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Award dated 5th December, 1996, limited to the question of payment of 50% of the back wages.2. The learned Labour Court has awarded 50% of the back wages only on the ground that the petitioner was employed as Mali from 21st February, 1989 to 29th March, 1989 and if he had made an effort, he could have got an alternative job.3. This does not seem to be a cogent reason for not granting full back wages. The mere fact that the petitioner worked for one and a half months, does not mean that he will always be able to get a job. The fact that he could work for only one and a half months possibly shows that he could not get any further employment.4. Since no other reason has been given by the learned Labour Court, the impugned Award is set aside to this extent. The petitioner would be entitled to full back wages from the date of the demand notice, that is, 24th April, 1989 till the date of reinstatement.Nothing further surviv...
Suresh Kumar Vs. P.O., Labour Court No. Iii and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT233; [2002(95)FLR1214]; (2003)ILLJ624Del; 2003(3)SLJ393(Delhi)
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The only question raised in this case is whether the learned Labour Court was right in granting only 40% of the back wages from the date of the demand notice, that is, 9th August, 1998.2. The only reason given by the learned Labour Court for not giving full back wages is that the petitioner had not stated that he was unemployed since the date of his termination nor has he given the details of the efforts made by him to secure an alternative employment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the examination-in-chief of the petitioner in which it has been specifically stated as under:'I am unemployed since the date of my termination.'3. No suggestion to the contrary was made by the petitioner in his cross-examination. Quite clearly, the learned Labour Court has proceeded on a factually incorrect basis.4. There was reason for the petitioner to state what steps he had taken to obtain alternate employment. The fact is that he did not have alte...
Jaipal Sharma and anr. Vs. the P.O., Labour Court No. Viii and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ217; [2002(95)FLR1204]; 2003(1)SLJ75(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the Award dated 10th May, 1999 passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. No. 171/1988.2. The challenge is to the denial of 100% back wages. The learned Labour Court has granted 50% of the back wages by merely stating that 'ends of justice' will be served if the petitioners are granted 50% of the back wages.3. From the impugned Award, there is nothing to indicate how the 'ends of justice' will be served if full back wages are not given and only a part of the back wages is given. The petitioners worked for as long as four years with the respondent and their termination was held to be unjustified.4. In view of the fact that there is no discussion on this aspect and no reason has been given by the learned Labour Court, there is no option but to allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioners be paid full back wages from the date of the demand notice, that is, 10th February, 1988 till the date of reinstatement. Fifty percent of b...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »