Delhi Court February 2003 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)662; [2004]266ITR195(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of Revenue, the Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the determination of the perquisite value of the accommodation, furniture, electricity and water at Rs. 5,784,'2. The reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1981-82. The issue is with respect to the determination of the value of perquisite provided to the respondent-assessed by his employer by way of rent-free accommodation, furniture, electricity and water.3. From the order of the Tribunal we find that though the Tribunal has referred to its earlier Orders passed in the cases of the assessed and other directors of the same Company, but in the penultimate paragraph of its order, except for relying on the said order, it has not recorded any reason for deciding the issue in favor of the assessed.4. Similar issue had come up for...
Cit Vs. Dr. Devinder Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN583(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to hold that in valuing the shares of Indofil Chemicals Limited as per rule 1D the actual tax liability on the basis of book profits is deductible and only the excess provision of taxation was not deductible ?'2. As is evident from the format of the question, the issue involved is purely legal and, thereforee, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the controversy involved is as to whether while determining the market value of un-quoted shares of a company, as per the procedure prescribed in rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, which amount as 'provision for taxation' made by the assessed in the balance sheet in the column 'liabilities' is to be treated as liability.3. The issue is no mo...
Cit Vs. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN267(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. At the instance of revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the determination of the perquisite value of the accommodation, furniture, electricity and water at Rs. 5,784.'2. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1981-82. The issue is with respect to the determination of the value of perquisite provided to the respondent-assessed by his employer by way of rent-free accommodation, furniture, electricity and water.From the order of the Tribunal we find that though the Tribunal has referred to its earlier orders passed in the cases of the assessed and other Directors of the same company, but in the penultimate paragraph of its order, except for relying on the said order, it has not recorded any reason for deciding the issue in favor of the assessed.3. S...
Mahajan Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT820TriDel
1. In this appeal, the challenge is against the order of the Commissioner rejecting the appellants' claim for abatement of duty for the period 16-3-2000 to 31-3-2000 during which the appellants' Hot Air Stenter was remaining closed. The Commissioner appears to have rejected the appellants' claim on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the intimation of closure of the stenter given by the appellants under Rule 96ZQ(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was late by one day and secondly on the ground that the entire factory of the appellants had not been closed down during the said period.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the closure intimation had been given by letter dated 10-3-2000 which was received by the Department on 13-3-2000. He further submits that the 11th and 12th March, 2000, being Saturday and Sunday, were holidays for the Department and, therefore, intimation could be actually given only on 13th March, 2000 (Monday). As per clause (b) of Rule 96ZQ(7)...
Ram Avtar Goel Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC54
1. The brief facts of the case are that the officers of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi searched the clinical premises of M/s. Saluja Medical Hall, 21 Dayanand Marg. Darya Ganj, Delhi on 5.7.89. As a result of the search, one packet wrapped in a newspaper was recovered. Further, one suitcase and a brief-case were also recovered from the premises of the said clinic. On opening the said packet, it was found to contain seventeen bars of gold, forty-five strips of gold and three gold tails, all bearing foreign markings and of 24 cts. purity totally weighing 4976.200 gms. valued at Rs. 15,17,74(sic). The gold was seized in the reasonable belief that the same was smuggled into India. The suitcase and the brief-case were also seized. As a follow up action, premises of M/s. Smart Tailors, 21 Dayanand Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi, the residence of one Shri Ram Avtar Goel at G-56 Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and residential premises of one Shri Girish Khanduja at B-2/27-C Lawrence ...
Cce Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC432
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 49/94-CE (N.T.) dated 22.9.94 is available to the goods manufactured and removed by the Respondents, M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. 2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture polyethylene Terepthalate (Polyster Polymer Chips) and avail of MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that a show cause notice dated 1.1.1996 was issued to them for recovering Modvat Credit wrongly taken by them and for imposing penalty is they had cleared their final product Polyster Polymer Chips at ail rate of duty against C.T-2 Certificates issued Under Notification No. 49/94-CE(N.T.); that the Asst.Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 61/2000 dated 13.10.2000 allowed the Modvat Credit on the ground that the restriction of non-availment of Modvat Credit on inputs used in export goods envisaged unde...
Shri Hari Chand and ors. Vs. Psp Builders and Promoters
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)377; 103(2003)DLT345; 2003(67)DRJ573
Vikramajit Sen, J. IAs No.8572/02, 11439-40/02 1. These applications have been filed consequent upon the death of Defendant No. 2 on 17/12/2001. On 30/3/2001, this Court had ordered dusty notice to the non-applicants through counsel, returnable on 16/7/2001. An application for amendment, which counsel for the parties state is yet to be disposed of, had been filed by the Plaintiff to implead, inter alia, the wife, and now widow of Defendant No. 2. Although steps were taken for serving her, these steps remained futile. In the proceedings held on 8/3/2002, it was recorded that the summons issued to the wife of Defendant No. 2 have been received back unserved with the Report that she was not found/living at the given address and the house was found locked. Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor had observed that ' though there is a presumption of service but as a matter of precaution let their service be effected by affixation and at the conspicuous place of the Court House'. The relevance of men...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri S.K. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)139; 103(2003)DLT785
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge. Respondent Havaldar S.K. Sharma had filed a writ petition aggrieved by his dismissal from service in pursuance to the finding and sentence of a summary court-martial dated 4.3.1996. 2. The charges against the respondent related to making accusations against his Commanding Officer for failure to take action on his application for railway warrant and other was regarding allotment of accommodation knowing fully well that such accusations were false. The respondent it seems filed his petition dated 1.6.1995 addressed to the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command, complaining that Lt. Col. K.L. Yadav did not take action on his application for railway warrant dated 18.5.1995. The charge-sheet was issued against the respondent that the respondent made this false accusation fully knowing the same to be false. The respondent was further charged with act prejudicial to good order and milit...
Smt. Usha Lata Sood Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)245; 105(2003)DLT219; 2003(68)DRJ94
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A perpetual sub-lease deed was executed on 23rd November 1971 in favor of Major Rameshwar Sahai and Smt. Sushil Kumari in respect of plot No. 29, Street No. D-1, Vasant Vihar, Site No. B, Govt. Servants Coop. Society, plot measuring 767 sq.yds. which sub-lease deed was duly registered. 2. The sub-lessees entered into a transaction in respect of the property in question and on account of certain disputes, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made and published an award on 30th December 1981 in terms whereof it was held that the property stood sold to the petitioner who was declared the owner of the property in question. The award was made rule of the court on 5th April 1982 and was duly registered. 3. The petitioner volunteered to pay the unearned increase but the respondent threatened to cancel the sub-lease deed in view of the transfer having taken place without prior permission obtained in writing of the Lesser. The petitioner filed a suit f...
Pritam Singh MakIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)297; AIR2003Delhi344; 104(2003)DLT202; 2003(17)DRJ518
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner purchased land bearing plot Nos. G-45 and G-46 forming part of Khasra Nos.629, 802, 803, 839 and 840 situated in village Tihar and forming part of regularised layout plan of Hari Nagar Extension in pursuance to a sale deed dated 19th August, 1955. It is stated in the petition that respondent No. 1/MCD wrongly took possession of the aforesaid property some time in the year 1962 and started running the school thereon. The petitioner filed a suit bearing No. 129/69 for possession and damages before the Court of Sub-Judge which suit was decreed on 22nd May, 1975. The Trial Court took note of the stand of the respondent/Corporation that in the regularised plan of the colony, the disputed land had been shown as earmarked for community centre but it had not been stated that the plots in question had been acquired by the Government and thus, remained the property of the petitioner herein. The said decree was challenged by the respondent/Corporation in ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »