Delhi Court March 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.
Sh. Hukum Chand and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT21; 2004(74)DRJ509
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This writ petition came up for admission on 12th September, 2003, and has been adjourned on successive dates. With consent of parties, it is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, assails the order dated 17.10.2002, passed by the Financial Commissioner, respondent No.1 in revision and orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.5.2002 passed under Section 43-A of East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and 28.9.1984 passed by Consolidation Officer of amended allotments in consolidation proceedings.3. The facts giving rise to the present petition insofar as they are relevant for its disposal may be noticed:(i) Petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 7 are residents of village Khaira, Delhi. They claim that they hold agricultural land in Village Mitraon, Delhi. The villages are stated to be located at a short distance from each other. In the year 1974-75, consolidation proce...
O.P. Khanna Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: II(2004)BC553; [2005]126CompCas142(Delhi); 110(2004)DLT763; 2004(74)DRJ537; [2005]62SCL390(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This writ petition had come up for admission on 28.1.2004. Vide interim order passed in CM.984/04, notice was issued for 24.3.2004 and it was directed that petitioner be not dis-possessed. Further, that petitioner shall not create any third party right or part with possession of the property. The present application CM.1802/2004 has been moved by the respondent/Bank, seeking modification of order dated 28.1.2004. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, CM.Nos.1802/04 & 984/04 are taken up for disposal.2. The facts as far as they are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present application are being noted in brief:(i) Petitioner and his son-in-law purchased property in question bearing No.10/1, DLF Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, vide registered Sale Deed dated 29.5.2000 from Ms. Neeru Seem. The property is stated to have been purchased in two parts by the petitioner and his son-in-law. The Sale Deed in favor of son-in-law, it is stated, co...
Cit Vs. Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN309(Delhi)
ORDERAt the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court :'Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified insetting aside the disallowance under section 40A(S) by excluding cash payments from perquisites for the purpose of computation.'2. We are not required to discuss the matter in detail since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 19 ITR 644 . Accordingly, the reference is required to be decided against the revenue and in favor of the assessed.The reference stands disposed of....
Sapphire (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT14TriDel
1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the demands of Rs. 55,490/- and Rs. 30,733/-. The demand of Rs. 55,490/- was raised on the ground that the appellant received higher value of goods supplied by them on account of price variation clause. The additional consideration was revised on 30-7-1999 and on a visit by the officers of the Department of Revenue on 6-10-1999, it was found that the appellant had not paid differential duty. As the price was enhanced and additional consideration was revised by appellant and this fact was admitted by them. Hence appellants were liable to pay the differential duty on the enhanced price, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby duty demand was confirmed.2. In respect of the demand of Rs. 30,733/-, the duty is confirmed on the ground that appellants are receiving same amount over and above, the freight expenses shown by them from the customers. This additional consideration was received by them, therefore, appel...
Jt. Cit Vs. Sarvodaya Hospital
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Delhi)45
This appeal by the revenue against the order dated 9.6.2000 of Iearned Commissioner (Appeals)-XX, New Delhi raises the following grounds:- - On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting: (i) Addition of Rs. 62,430 made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed cash found during search & seizure, operations.(ii) Addition of Rs. 30,51,589 on account of undisclosed profit worked out by the assessing officer for the Block Period of assessment.(iii) Addition of Rs. 32,65,000 made by assessing officer on account of depreciation on assets not belonging to the assessee firm and were held in the names of partners.(iv) Addition of Rs. 45,31,202 made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed investment made in construction of Sarvodaya Hospital building and based on'the valuation report of the Valuation Officer." Ground No. 1 of the dispute relates to the addition of Rs. 62,430 on account of cash found and seized du...
Sarjiwan Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT633; 2004(75)DRJ400
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The common question of fact and law which arises in these Petitions is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to file a Plaint in which only an Injunction implicate has been prayed for in the wake of receiving electricity bills for sundry amounts. In Suit No. 791/1997 the learned Civil Judge has held, after considering a catena of precedents, that it was essential for the Plaintiff to pray for the passing of a declaration holding the electricity bill to be invalid before it could be entitled to pray for the consequential relief of an injunction against the Defendant from taking any steps for the recovery of the amounts claimed in the impugned Bill, On the same conspectus of facts, and appreciation of the law, several References had also been made which will be answered by this judgment.2. The pro visions of law which are attracted are found in Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. So far as the Suit Valuation Act is concerned, what is basically enunciated therein is that...
Pradeep Vs. Mamta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT16; 2004(74)DRJ528
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner had brought the child to Court, pursuant to the directions given on 7th January, 2004. The child has met the respondent-mother. On enquiring from the parties, I find that at present there is no possibility of reconciliation. With the consent of parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioner-husband has filed this petition assailing the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Guardian Judge in G.No.241/2003. By the said order, the Guardian Judge had directed issuance of production warrants to be executed by the SHO, Pappan Kalan, Uttam Nagar, Delhi with a direction to petitioner-husband to produce the minor child in Court. The learned Guardian Judge was of the opinion that as per Section 9 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, the jurisdiction under Section 9(1) of the Act is of the Court where the minor ordinarily resides.3. The learned Guardian Judge has proceeded on the basis that the child was living in Delhi with respondent but the petition...
Him Ispat Limited Vs. Bharat Berg Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT572; 2004(77)DRJ342
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Nos. 15/1998 and 16/1998 whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 9th December, 2000 has allowed the revision petitions and quashed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the petitioner had issued two notices, one dated 23rd September, 1995 and another one dated 5th December, 1995 for the same cause of action.2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the so-called first notice dated 23rd September, 1995 was never received by the accused/respondents and that a photo copy of a fax message cannot be treated as document admissible, at this stage of the proceedings, for the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint suffers on account of limitation. He also contends that there is no record to show the receipt of notice dated 23rd September, 1995 and, thereforee, in the absence of receipt of notice bei...
Kiran Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)40
ORDERKeshawprasad, A.M.:The appeal has been directed by the assessed against the order of the assessing officer under section 158BD of the Act pertaining to block period 1-4-1986 to 29-8-1996.2. In ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessed has challenged the assessing officer's assumption of jurisdiction under section 158BD of the Act.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed is a private limited company incorporated in May, 1987 with the object of manufacturing automobile parts. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act took place at the premises of M/s DD Industries Ltd. and its associated concerns on 29-8-1996. Certain documents relating to the assessed- company were also found during the course of search and seizure operation. Consequently, a survey operation under section 133A of the Act was also done at the plant and registered office of the assessed- company at B-145, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The proceedings under section 158BD of the Act were initiated by is...
Sita World Travel (1) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)20
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.:While appeal for assessment year 1989-90 has been directed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 11-10-1996 the appeal for assessment year 1993-94 has been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 1-10-1996. As the issues in both the appeals are common, the appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The first issue which is common to both the years related to the deduction under section 80HHD of the Act.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed is engaged in the business of travel agents and tour operators. When it filed the return of income, it claimed deduction under section 80HHD of the Act based on the report of the chartered accountant. During assessment proceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessed as to why the incomes on account of dividend, capital gains, interest from banks and interest from others may not be reduced from the eligible profits for the purposes o...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »