Delhi Court October 2004 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.
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD119(Delhi)
1. Various issues are involved in this appeal, However, for the sake of convenience, we shall first take up some legal issues.2. First such issue relates to various disallowances under Section 43B aggregating Rs. 2,30,73,57,062 read with the provisions of Section 145A. The AO noted that the following amounts were not debited to P&L a/c but the assessee had claimed deduction for the same under Section 43B on the plea of actual payment : (i) Excise duty on vehicles 3,19,41,665 (ii) R&D cess on vehicles 8,41,460 (iii) Excise duty on spare parts 6,76,0752. Customs duty paid on imports for export purposes for 22,46,88,464 which exports has not been made3. Custom duty paid on import of components for which 31,79,98,407 export has been made.4. Excise duty paid and (CVD) paid on purchase of 69,93,00,428 components to be adjusted against excise duty payable on finished products, i.e., balance of RG 23-A Part-II.5. Custom duty (CVD) paid to be adjusted against excise 8,39,13,307 duty pa...
Air France Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through the Secretary (Labou ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT583; [2005(104)FLR358]; (2005)ILLJ1142Del; 2006(1)SLJ465(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The grievance of the Petitioner is with respect to an Award dated 15th October, 1999 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.283/87. By the impugned Award, it was held that the Respondent/Workman is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. The Respondent superannuated on 1st August, 1994, well before the impugned Award and, thereforee, there is no question of his reinstatement in service. The only question that survives, thereforee, is with respect to back wages awarded to him. 2. On 22nd April, 1975, a consignment of 48 packages containing reptiles and animal skins sought to be smuggled out of India was seized at the international airport in Delhi by the customs authorities. Investigations were carried out by them and during the course of these investigations, a statement of the Respondent/Workman was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 23rd April, 1975. It is said that the Respondent/Workman admitted his involvement in the attempt to smuggle out t...
Shri Rajiv Sharma Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ154
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing of order dated 17.8.2004, directing the him to appear for medical examination under Rule 2(2) of the CCS Medical Examination Rules, 1957. Petitioner claims that on account of his difference with respondent No.2, he is being victimised. Petitioner had been earlier directed to appear for a medical examination before a Medical Board. He appeared on 22.6.2004, when he was examined and some tests carried out. The result of these test was no made available, as the petitioner, it is stated, was not examined by the Psychiatrist. Petitioner objected to this examination as being contrary to CCS Medical Examination Rules, 1957, as the approval of the Competent Authority had not been taken. Subsequently, approval of the Competent Authority had been obtained for examination and he had been asked to appear before the Medical Board in the LNJP Hospital. Petitioner lastly received an intimation for appearance before ...
interstate Constructions Vs. Npcc Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR421(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT746
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that due to the obdurate approach of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Respondent and the Arbitrator appointed by him, who is also an employee of the respondent its claim in arbitration has been thwarted for several years. It is in these circumstances that the present Petition has been filed with the prayer for terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator and for the appointment of a fresh Arbitrator.2. At the threshold learned counsel for the Respondent has taken an objection that this Court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Respondent on Patel Roadways Ltd. vs . Prasad Trading Company, : [1991]3SCR391 , and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in B.B. Verma vs . NPCC Ltd., : 80(1999)DLT498 and two decisions delivered by me in Famous Construction vs. NPCC Ltd. in Suit No.615 of 1996 and Nellicka Cane Corporation vs . State Trading C...
Goel Associates Vs. Jivan Bima Rashtriya Avas Samati Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT478
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The appellant is an architect engaged by the respondents society. Pursuant to some dispute between the parties, which is subject matter of arbitration, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed for interim orders for attachment. Earlier an interim order attaching the property of society was passed which was vacated after hearing the parties by the impugned order.2. Mr. Munjal, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge titled as Rite Approach Group Ltd. Vs . M/S Rosoboronextport : 111(2004)DLT816 and another judgment of learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Delta Construction Systems Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Narmada Cement Company Ltd., Mumbai 2002 (2) Arb. LR 47 (Bom) and on the basis of above said authorities, it was contended that the power to grant interim relief cannot b...
Om Parkash Bhola Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)544; [2005]273ITR291(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Admit.2. The following question of law at the instance of the assessed is required to be determined by this Court in the present appeal preferred by the assessed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order impugned before it was rectifiable under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961, by the CIT(A) when the order was subject-matter of an appeal before the Tribunal ?'3. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are disposing of this appeal finally.4. Against the appellate order made by the CIT(A) on 28th Jan., 1997, an appeal preferred by the Revenue (being IT Appeal No. 2013/Del/1997) for the asst. yr. 1993-94, was pending before the Tribunal at the time when the CIT(A) made an order on 4th June, 1999, under Section 154 of the IT Act. And, in view of this order it appears that the Tribunal also disposed of the said appeal by an order dt. 10th Feb....
Sh. Krishan Chander Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT558; 2005(80)DRJ405; [2005(104)FLR886]; 2006(1)SLJ164(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this judgment I would dispose of two writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 3379/2003 and W.P. (C) No. 5712/2003. The first writ petition has been filed by the workman under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction to the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation to grant him reinstatement with consequential benefits after rejection of the application filed by the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 23rd October, 2002, while in the latter the Corporation challenges the correctness of the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal dated 23rd October, 2002. As both these petitions arise from one and the same award, it will be appropriate to dispose of both these petitions by a common judgment.2. Before examining the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised before me during the course of hearing, it will be useful...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: [2005]92ITD120(Delhi)
ORDERSinghal, JM Various issues are involved in this appeal. However, for the sake of convenience, we shall first take up some legal issues.2. First such issue relates to various disallowances under section 43B aggregating Rs. 230,73,57,062 read with the provisions of section 145A. The assessing officer noted that the following amounts were not debited to Profit and Loss account but the assessed had claimed deduction for the same under section 43B on the plea of actual payment:1.PLA Balances (i) Excise Duty on vehicles 3,19,41,668 (ii) R & D cess on vehicles 8,41,460 (iii) Excise duty on spare parts 6,76,0752. Custom duty paid on imports for export purposes for which exports has not been made 22,46,88,4643. Custom duty paid on import of components for which export has been made. 31,79,98,4074. Excise Duty paid and (CVD) paid on purchase of Components to be adjusted against excise duty Payable on finished products i.e. balance of RG 23-A Part-II. 69,93,00,4285. Custom duty (CVD) paid to...
Emmsons International Ltd. Vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC26; 2005(80)DRJ513
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This suit involves the interpretation of Order xxxvII and the summary procedure to be followed upon the service of statutory summons on the defendant under Order xxxvII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short the `CPC'). The proceedings in this case eloquently demonstrate how repeated opportunities to the defendant can defeat the ends of justice in the name of equity. The plaint is based upon the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st December, 2000, a document in writing covered by the post-dated cheques for a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/-. 2. It is not in dispute that on 17th February, 2004, the defendant was duly served with the summons in the statutory form, as envisaged under Order xxxvII Rule 3 of the CPC and is represented by Mr. Pallav Sisodia, Advocate. It is also not in dispute that no memo of appearance on behalf of the defendant has been entered thereafter as postulated under Order xxxvII CPC. 3. Summons for judgment are required to be taken out unde...
L.N. Gadodia and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)669
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These three appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. Without entering into the controversy whether the appeals as filed are maintainable or a petition under Article 226 is required to be filed, we are disposing of these proceedings.3. The Settlement Commission made an order under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act, 1961. In those cases, the Settlement Commission has drawn the computation in great detail and, thereforee, the AO while undertaking the recovery, has to strictly follow the order made by the Settlement Commission and, accordingly, he has to charge interest and not de hors the order made by the Settlement Commission. It is not open for the AO to charge interest under Section 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961, which is not indicated in the Settlement Commission's order. Accordingly, it is directed that the AO shall reconsider the same strictly in the light of the order made by the Settlement Commission.4. In view of this, the orders made by the T...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »