Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Director of Income Tax Vs. Sheraton International Inc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)666; [2004]270ITR303(Delhi)

ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order, dt. 23rd Oct., 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in assessed's appeals (ITA No. 2216/Del/2001 and ITA No. 253/Del/2002) pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99. By the impugned order the Tribunal has set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A) for both the assessment years and has restored the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. According to the appellant, the order of the Tribunal involves the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in failing to decide the appeals filed by the assessed on merits and remanding the matter back to the AO?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in remanding the matter back to the AO to determine whether the income received by the assessed is chargeable to tax under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the IT Act, 1961...

Phool Singh and anr. Vs. Girdhari Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ402

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 14.8.1984 of the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 281/1982 upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent herein).2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are that :' the respondent filed the abovementioned suit on the pleadings that he being the owner of plot No.13-H/1 has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same since 1948. The ownership of the plots in this village was given to the plaintiff/respondent and appellants as also the other villages as a result of some settlement reached between Jatavs and Jats of the said village in 1949 and since then, all the plot-holders have been enjoying undisturbed possession of the plots allotted to each one of them. It has been pleaded that a private passage from point A to A as shown in the p...

Cit Vs. National Cereals Products

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN445(Delhi)

ORDERThis appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order, dated 16-5-2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in IT Appeal No. 2777 (Delhi) of 1995 pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The issue, sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal, is as to whether the provision for payment for the employees towards accumulated privileged leave could be allowed as business expenditure or not?3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the issue raised is no more res integra. In Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT : [2000]245ITR428(SC) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that the provision made by a company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme, proportionate with the entitlement earned by the employees of the company, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as applicable on the relevant ...

National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. H.L. Mehta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ656Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. The matter is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition challenges the order of the Appellate Authority dated February 15, 1999 by which the appellate authority set aside the order of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated September 21, 1998. The appellate authority held as follows:'In view of the matter recorded above, in my opinion the controlling authority erred in holding that the non-applicant had correctly recovered Rs. 8700/- from the amount of gratuity due to the applicant. Both the parties did not dispute the amount of Rs. 8700/- and tried to justify for and against the deduction effected from the amount of gratuity paid to the appellant. After hearing the learned counsels of both the parties and the materials on record I hold that the deduction of Rs. 8700/- effected by the respondent from the gratuity amount of the appellant is not justified and the respondent should pay the amount of Rs. 8700/- from the date of ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Cereals Products

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)192

ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 is directed against order, dt. 16th May, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal), in ITA No. 2777/Del/1995 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. The issue, sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal, is as to whether the provision for payment for the employees towards accumulated privileged leave could be allowed as business expenditure or not?3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the issue raised is no more rest integra. In Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT : [2000]245ITR428(SC) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that the provision made by a company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement carried by the employees of the company, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as applicable on the relevant date, is entitled to deduction of this amount out of the ...

Mukesh Kumar Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)136PLR58

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. The writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 18th January, 2000, dismissing the statement of claim filed by the petitioner/workman and the writ petition also challenges the impugned Order dated 17th February, 2000, dismissing the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte Award dated 18th January, 2000.4. It is not in dispute that on 10th October, 1997 the respondent No. 3 management has been proceeded exparte and on the day, i.e., 18th January, 2000 when the order, dismissing the petitioner's statement of claim was passed, an application filed by the respondent No. 3 management for setting aside the exparte proceedings ordered on 10th October, 1997 was pending before the Labour Court.5. I have noted the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the absence of the petitioner was on the account of the fact that the wrong dat...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alexander M.P. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)ACC718; 2005ACJ1938

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three appeals as well as in the cross-objections, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. A few facts relevant for deciding these appeals are:Constable M.C. Alexander, Lance Nayak Hari Singh and Sub-Inspector M. Ramachandran Pillai were employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). On 5.12.1986, all these three officials serving with the 42nd Battalion of the CRPF were deployed at New Delhi, Gole Dak Khana area for controlling the law and order situation. The situation in the area was stated to be tense because the authorities of the nearby Gurudwara wanted to take out procession in connection with the Martyrdom Day of Guru Teg Bahadur and the local authorities were resisting the same. Prohibitory orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code were also imposed in the area. After some negotiations, it appears that Gurudwara authorities were permitted to ...

North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Bihari Lal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal, has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), against the order dated 21.11.2002 passed by District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 337/2002 entitled Sh. Bihari Lal v. North Delhi Power Limited and Anr. 2. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : The respondent Sh. Bihari Lal was a registered consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 1224026, installed at his residence with a sanctioned load of 1 KW. The appellant NDPL was sending the bills to the respondent on provisional basis. According to the respondent he received a bill of Rs. 5,346/- and he paid the above bill on 14.3.1998. The respondent further received a bill of Rs. 16,300/- for the month of September, 1999 which according to the respondent was arbitrary and false. The respondent approached the appellant NDPL and he was told that ...

Amarson Woollen Mills and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC626

1. These are two appeals, involving a common issue, filed by M/s.Amarson Woollen Mills and M/s. Swastika Woollen Mills against Order-in-Original Nos. 48/2001 dated 2.1.2002 and 130/2002 dated 26.4.2002 respectively.2. Shri H.O. Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Amarson Woollen Mills (Amarson in short) imported a consignment of Greasy Wool Micron 32 and above Fleeces VM 1.3% and classified the same under sub-Heading No. 5101.19 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act that the value declared in the Bills of Entry dated 5.7.99 was US $ 1.75 pa kg. in which they claimed exemption under Notification No.20/99-Cus., dated 28.2.99 that the Chemical Examiner, after testing the sample drawn by the Customs Officer, reported that "the same is greasy wool having average fibre diameter less than 32 Micron;" that after rejecting their request for retest of sample, the Commissioner, under the impugned Order dated 2.1.2002, confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Pashupati Spinning and Weaving

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT64TriDel

1. This order will dispose of the above captioned two appeals filed by the Revenue. Appeal No. E/459/03 has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 23-12-2002 while appeal No. E/1383/03 has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24-12-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reversed the orders-in-original. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common regarding the availability of the benefit of Notification 25/97-C.E., dated 7-5-97 to the respondents and as such are being disposed of through this common order.2. The learned SDR has contended that the benefit of Notification No.25/97-C.E., dated 7-5-97 is not available to the respondents as they had cleared sewing thread in the form of hanks and that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly observed that the said notification is applicable to such clearances of the sewing thread. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in both the appeals, deserve to b...