Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

Cit Vs. Vikas Leasing Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN303(Delhi)

ORDERIn this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the revenue seeks to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30-7-2001 in ITA No. 6053 (Del) of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The only issue, which is sought to be raised by the revenue, is as to whether the commercial vehicles leased out by the assessed for running them on hire, would be entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 40 per cent or not.3. Insofar as this court is concerned, the issue raised is no more res integra. In CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 69 this court has held that on a plain reading of section 32 of the Act and Entry III(2)(ii) in Appendix I to the Rules, it is clear that it is the user of the substantial asset which is relevant for determining the percentage of depreciation under the said section. If it is found that the leased out vehicle is used for running it on hire, depreciation at a higher rate is to be allowed.4. In view of the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Asha Gulati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Del)192; [2006]282ITR584(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 27A of the GT Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dt. 28th Nov., 2001, passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in GTA No. 32/Del/1994, pertaining to asst. yr. 1989-90.2. Briefly stated, the background facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows :The assessed was a partner in a firm, namely, M/s Sat Kartar International with one Mohan Gulati. She retired from the firm on 2nd Aug., 1988, and at the time of retirement, she took the balance amount outstanding in her capital account, but did not receive any amount towards goodwill and import entitlement of the said firm. The import entitlement of the said firm was subsequently sold by Mohan Gulati for Rs. 6,55,514.The AO was of the view that the assessed had made a gift in favor of Mohan Gulati in respect of her share in the goodwill and import entitlement of the firm. He, accordingly, valued the goodwill of the firm at Rs....

Cit Vs. Smt. Asha Gulati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN234(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.This appeal by the revenue under section 27A of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 28-11-2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in GTA No. 32/Del/1994, pertaining to assessment year 1989-90.2. Briefly stated, the background facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows :The assessed was a partner in a firm, namely, M/s. Sat Kartar International with one Mohan Gulati. She retired from the firm on 2-8-1988 and at the time of retirement she took the balance amount outstanding in her capital account, but did not receive any amount towards goodwill and import entitlement of the said firm. The import entitlement of the said firm was subsequently sold by Mohan Gulati for Rs. 6,55,514.3. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessed had made a gift in favor of Mohan Gulati in respect of her share in the goodwill and import entitlement of the firm....

Sunil Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT368TriDel

1. This is an application to condone the delay of 304 days in filing this appeal.2. The appellant is engaged in the production and clearance of Hot re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 & 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under order dated 14-12-2001 the Commissioner determined the Annual Production Capacity of the Hot Rolling Mill of the appellant. Since the order did not contain a preamble, the appellant sent two representations dated 9-1-2002 and 18-3-2002 requesting for issue an appealable order. To the above representations, a reply was received only on 28-10-2002 intimating the appellant that both representations cannot be considered as the Annual Production Capacity has been already fixed by the Commissioner under the Order dated 14-12-2001. It is the case of the appellant that within three months from the date of receipt of the above reply, they have filed the appeal. The appellant would, therefore, contend that the delay was caused due to a ...

Maj. Gen. Surendra Kumar Sahni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)541; 105(2003)DLT211; 2003(71)DRJ693; 2004(1)SLJ80(Delhi)

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner is a Major General, in Army Service Corpse (ASC) of the Army. Presently, he is posted at Headquarters Southern Command, Pune, Maharashtra. Prior to that, he had been posted as Major General Army Service Corps (MG ASC) at Headquarters Central Command, located at Lucknow, during the period from 5th July, 1999 to 21st November, 2001. During his posting there, apart from discharging his normal duties, he also acted as Executive Officer, designated as such under relevant Regulations for the purposes of conclusion of contracts for the supply of 'Meat Group' items of Troops' ration, stationed at different places under Central Command including Meerut and Lucknow. Acting in that capacity, he was required to adhere to the provisions contained in letter No. PC/RAKSHA/68063/Q/ST5/5089D(QS) dated 22-11-2002 of Government of India, Ministry of defense as well as terms and conditions of tender documents while concluding the contracts. 2. The petitioner while func...

Shalu Rawal and ors. Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)552; 104(2003)DLT550; 2003(68)DRJ463; 2003(2)JCC1016

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short ACMM), Delhi taking cognisance of offences emanating from FIR No. 445/2000 under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.2. The facts as found by the learned ACMM are as under:-At 3.45 p.m on 29.4.2000 Additional Station House Officer (for short `Addl. SHO') police station Rajouri Garden, received an information from an informer that in 'Bunny Thunny D Guys Den Beauty Parlour', A-1, Rajouri Garden, II floor, New Delhi flesh trade was being run by one Sandeep Suri, who has employed 6/7 girls for the purpose of sexual pleasure of the customers and if a raid was conducted the same could be detected. Addl. SHO P.S. Rajouri Garden brought this information to the notice of Ad...

Grand Chemical Works and ors. Vs. Nirmala Dyechem and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)240; 105(2003)DLT463; 2003(69)DRJ418; 2003(27)PTC27(Del)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an application moved by defendant No. 2 for clarification of the order dated 14.2.2003, passed in IA. 1865/2003 to the effect, that the injunction granted does not apply to the advertisement of the applicant/defendant appearing at pages 65 to 69.2. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from displaying or taking out advertisement in the media, telecasting or broadcasting the advertisements, which are defamatory or disparaging of the plaintiff's product. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the manufacturer of 'phenyl'. During the course of arguments, as recorded in the order dated 14.2.2003, plaintiff had taken the Court through the advertisements, annexures 3 and 4, which were being broadcast and telecasted. It was urged that the pictorial and audio text showed that the defendant apart from eulogising the qualities of their product 'Domex' were undermining and disparaging the qualities of the plaintiffs' produc...

Vikas Laminator Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)251; AIR2003Delhi434; III(2003)BC355; 2004(1)CTLJ170(Del); 105(2003)DLT331

R.C. Jain, J. 1. The above named plaintiff has moved is No. 4763/2002 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 bank from making payment of the bank guarantees in question to defendant No. 2 till the disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments and allegations that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; defendant No.1 is a banking company while defendant No. 2 is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having been formed for assisting small scale industrial units in the country in several ways, one of which being to extend raw-material assistance to the units in procuring raw-material from the canalized/government to dateagencies for and on behalf of the said units. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing of flexible packaging and for that purpose it has been purchasing raw material from various companies and for w...

Firoz Khan Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)DMC123; 2004(73)DRJ376

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. Crl. M. No. 1346/2003 Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 pray that FIR No. 607/1999 registered with P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin under Sections 406/498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and the proceedings in pursuance thereof may be quashed for the reason that the parties have resolved all their disputes and differences amicably and are residing together for the last about three years. The complainant, who is present in person, prays that in view of their reunion, the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings emanating there from may be quashed.2. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case in which in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, FIR and the proceedings emanating there from, should be quashed. The FIR was registered on account of the matrimonial disputes betwee...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sherawat

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The above mentioned 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 13.1.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 3381/2000 - entitled Shri Deepak Sherawat v. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Deepak Sherawat had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the respondent had an Insurance Policy in respect of his Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. DL-9S-D 5632, Model-1997 with New India Assurance Company Ltd., w.e.f. 11.10.1998 to 10.10.1999. It was stated that after a gap of one month from the date of expiry of the said policy the respondent had approached the appellant for an insurance cover in respect of the above said vehi...