Delhi Court August 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.
Shri Gulab Singh, Shri Arun Kumar Vs. Acit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD510(Delhi)
As reference to DVO, under section 16A, was made by the assessing officer, therefore, he cannot ignore or disregard the order of DVO and if he does so, then the assessment was made without taking into account the estimate made by DVO was a erroneous and prejudicial order, therefore, Commissioner was justified in revising the same under section 25.As reference to DVO, under section 16A, was made by the assessing officer, therefore, he cannot ignore or disregard the order of DVO and if he does so, then the assessment was made without taking into account the estimate made by DVO was a erroneous and prejudicial order, therefore, Commissioner was justified in revising the same under section 25.Since the Wealth Tax Officer had made reference to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year under consideration, it was incumbent upon him to have considered the report of the said Valuation Officer which was relevant for this assessment year. He has total...
Sikander Publishing (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)249
1. These are two appeals by the same assesses against two different orders of learned CIT(A), both dt. 25th Feb., 2002, for asst. yr.1997-98 and 1998-99.2. Shri Pawan Kumar and Shri Pieyush Kaushik C.A.s appear on behalf of the assesses whereas Shri R.R. Prasad, Departmental Representative, represented the Department.3. The assessee has moved separate applications, for the two assessment years in question, both dt. 10th April, 2003, for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules 1963. The learned representative of the assessee Shri Pieyush Kaushik submitted that before the Departmental authorities the assessee had filed confirmations from the American Express Bank (Luxemborg), evidencing the factum of transfer of various remittances from this account to the account of Joakim Aim and Anita Pandeya with Citi Bank, Mumbai and Delhi. According to the learned counsel, this evidence was adduced to explain the investment made by the two persons but the Revenue authoriti...
Neeraj Monga Vs. O.P. Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)245; 106(2003)DLT138; 2003(71)DRJ676
Mukul Mudgal, J.1.Rule 2.With the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3.This writ petition challenges the order dated 23rd May, 2002 wherein the deposit of Rs.31,01,450/- has been sought from the petitioner by the ALO of Implementation Cell of Labour Department, NCT of Delhi who according to the respondents was the Managing Director of the company. The impugned order is passed pursuant to the award dated 11th December, 1997 passed in I.D. No. 246/96 at the behest of respondent No. 5 union. 4.The averments made by the petitioner shows that according to him he had resigned from the directorship of the company on 23rd August, 2002 and the requisite notice of change in Form 32 was filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies on 4th September, 2002. It is also pleaded that in fact the recovery certificate dated 2nd September, 1998 is against the company only but is being sought to be implemented against him personally. 5.The learned counsel ...
Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)281; 106(2003)DLT164; 2003(70)DRJ357
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of property No. 4-E/11, Ward No. 15, Jhandewalan, New Delhi and are aggrieved by the assessment order dated 02.02.2001 fixing the rateable value of the property at different values from 01.12.1988 onwards. The petitioner have also impugned the consequent bill dated 15.06.2001 raised in pursuance to the order of assessment.2. The petitioners acquired rights to the property in question in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed executed on 16.11.1973 in favor of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and the husband of petitioner No. 3, who subsequently passed away. The petitioners entered in to a contract with M/s. Indraprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd. for development and construction of a building on the said property. It is stated that in terms of the said agreement, an area of 20000 sq. ft. had to be constructed and the petitioners agreed to lt out 10000 sq. ft. of the area to the said builders on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. and the remaining ...
Alphabetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lohia Jute Press
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)570; AIR2004Delhi374; 107(2003)DLT74; 2003(70)DRJ458
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. In a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of certain amount being the price of the goods supplied to the respondent an objection was taken by the respondent that as per agreement between the parties, printed on the bills submitted by the plaintiff, only courts in Bombay had jurisdiction to try the suit and Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to try the same. This plea was, however, denied by the plaintiff and it was stated that the conditions printed on the bills did not constitute a binding agreement between the parties and as part of cause of action had accrued in Delhi, the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and also the plea taken by the respondent in the written statement that as per the conditions contained in the bills furnished by the plaintiff/appellant, the Bombay courts alone had jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties, besides framing other issues, also fr...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)117; 106(2003)DLT408; 2003(71)DRJ661
Mukul Mudgal, J.1.This writ petition challenges the award dated 6th November, 2001 by which the respondent NO.1 was directed to be paid the minimum of pay scale without increment, for the post of Steno-typist during the period 31st October, 1986 to 5th July, 1991.2.The impugned award is dated 6th November, 2001 and the petition has been filed belatedly without any satisfactory Explanationn in August, 2003. The writ petition avers that the award was received by the petitioner in the third week of January, 2002. From then to 31st January, 2003 the only Explanationn is the contemplation of filing of a review petition which was never filed. Even from 31st January, 2003 till 9th April, 2003 there is no satisfactory Explanationn for the delay. 3.Even on merits it has been found that the workman Hari Singh was diverted after passing of prescribed trade test of Stenography. The Tribunal has relied on documents such as Exhibits WW1/12, WW1/15, WW1/18, WW1/19. The Tribunal has also rightly relie...
Dunlop India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)81; 106(2003)DLT135; 2003(71)DRJ175; (2003)IIILLJ125Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the Controlling Authority as well the order in appeal dated 14th June, 2002 by which the appeal of the petitioner was not admitted on failure to comply with the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act requiring deposit of the impugned amount. The petitioner sought to challenge the original order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act which directed payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- as gratuity to the respondent before the appellate authority. One of the issues i. e. issue No. 2 was to the effect that the claim raised by the respondent is belated and should be dismissed on this ground. This issue has been deliberated upon by the Controlling Authority which has recorded a finding that it was by virtue of correspondence sent by the respondent No. 4 to the petiti...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC258; 2003VIAD(Delhi)278; 106(2003)DLT536; 2003(70)DRJ642; 2004(2)SLJ263(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Admit. 2. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the insurance company against an order passed under the provisions of the Workmens' Compensation Act whereby the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has directed a sum of Rs. 82,380/- to be paid to respondents 1 and 2 by way of compensation for the death of one Mr. Som Dev who had allegedly died during the course of his employment with respondents 3 and 4. Besides compensation the Commissioner, Workmens' Compensation also directed a penalty of 50% of the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants. The vehicle which had met with an accident and in which the deceased was stated to be employed was insured with the appellant-insurance company. The insurance company has challenged this award mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that the claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmens' Compensation Act was barred by time inasmuch as while the accident took place on 27.3.1988, the claim petition was filed in M...
A.K. Tantia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT638TriDel
1. This is an appeal, filed by Sh. A.K. Tantia, against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Additional Commissioner, in Order-in-Original No. 23/99, dated 2-6-99, confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Best Board Ltd. besides imposing penalty; that the Additional Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant, who is a Managing Director of M/s. Best Board Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellant has no role in the running of the company, except the inter-action and liaising with the Financial Institutions and BIFR; Rule 209A requires that the person, should have knowledge and reasonable belief that the goods are liable for confiscation; that penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant in absence of specific allegation in show cause notice and clear findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the decision in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. and Ors.v. CC...
Bharat Seats Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT464TriDel
1. When this application for stay came up for hearing, it was felt that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We therefore, exempt the condition for pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself.2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the demand of penalty. According to the appellant since they had paid duty before issue of a show cause notice, no penalty should have been imposed on them. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Department has no case that they had collected duty on 0.5%. It is the case of the appellant that as a goodwill gesture/ admitting the duty liability it agreed to pay the amount in order to see that the dispute is not continued with the Department.3. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand would contend that there was suppression on the part of the appellant regarding the dispute relating to the 0.5%. He also submitted that since the appellant had not raised any objection on merits, on levy of duty, he canno...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »