Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 26 of about 296 results (0.011 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.R. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)454; 117(2005)DLT447; 2005(80)DRJ324; [2005]275ITR303(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax questions the validity and correctness of the Order dated 4.2.2003 in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has fallen in error of law in coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction for initiation of penalty as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also contended that the following findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order are perverse and as such should be set aside :'However, whether the land in question was agricultural land or not is pending adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court. But as the amounts were added by the AO to the total income of the assessed, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), were initiated. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Ram Commercial Enterprises (supra) has held that before initiatin...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar, Prop. Surya Trading Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, I. Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Del)377; 117(2005)DLT559; [2005]275ITR641(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Rajesh Kumar and three other petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ, order; particularly, the writ of certiorari quashing the direction/order dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 18, Jhandewalan, New Delhi directing special audit under Section 142 (2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the block period 1.4.1996 to 18.12.2002.2. The petitioners are challenging the validity of this direction on the ground that the same has been issued without application of mind and recording any reason whatsoever in the assessment proceedings or otherwise. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act cannot relate to any other record except books of accounts of the assessedss. Thus, the order being beyond the scope of the relevant provision is even wit...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)501; [2005]275ITR474(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this order, we propose to dispose of both the above appeals because they are connected with one another. ITA No.462/2003 is taken up first.2. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 16th December, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, New Delhi (for short the ITAT) in ITA No.192/D/98 for the assessment year 1994-95.3. The Appellant has sought to raise, in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) as many as six substantial questions of law which, it is said, arise out of the order of the ITAT. The nub of the controversy, however, is really with regard to the question whether enhanced compensation of about Rs.14.75 lakhs received by the Appellant is taxable in the year of receipt or is taxable only when it is finally determined to whom the amount, or part thereof, is due.4. The Appellant had bhumidari rights in respect of land which was acquired by the Delhi Government. Apart from the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT611
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction quashing the Notification dated 18.3.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act without deciding the objections filed by the Petitioner under Section 5A of the Act in pursuance to the Notification issued under section 4 of the said Act. The Petitioner also prayed that the Respondents be restrained from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings any further.2. The Petitioner alleges that he purchased a plot of land measuring 178 sq. yds. situated on the main road leading from Village Karala to Village Mundka in the same Revenue Estate in the year 1995. In the year 1996 the Petitioner raised construction of 6 rooms and 2 shops and got the water and electricity connections in that premises. The Government of NCT of Delhi issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act intending to acquire land including ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nestle India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)98; 117(2005)DLT680; 2005(80)DRJ282; [2005]275ITR1(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The appeal of the assessed against the Order dated 6.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XIII, New Delhi was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by a detailed order dated 19.9.2001, the legality and correctness thereof is challenged by the Appellant in the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') 2. The necessary facts are that assessed filed the return of income on 29.11.1994 declaring a total income of Rs.33,75,58,470/- . An order under Section 143 of the Act was passed on 12.1.1995. However, the case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Act. Notices were issued to the assessed on 2.2.1995 in response to which the representative of the assessed appeared. The Assessing Officer upon scrutiny found that amount of Rs.2,50,81,308/- could not be permitted to be deducted and they disallowed the deduction of the entire amount in terms of provision of Section 40(a)(i)...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rachna Kapila Vs. University of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT460; 2005(80)DRJ300; 2006(1)SLJ184(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is now taken up for final hearing. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- On 10.10.1994, the Petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc Lecturer in the Department of Microbiology with effect from 17.10.1994 to 23.12.1994. The letter mentions that the appointment is terminable at any time and that it was subject to the approval of the Governing Body. By letter dated 09.01.1995, this ad-hoc appointment continued on the same terms & conditions with effect from 09.01.1995 to 24.03.1995. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2, Institute of Home Economics, University of Delhi, issued an Advertisement dated 15.01.1995 inviting applications on the prescribed Form for the post of Zoology-1 (part-time, permanent, Rs.1500/- fixed). Memorandum dated 21.03.1995 was issued prior to the expiry of the second year of contractual service informing the Petitioner regarding her Offer of Appointment as Lecturer in Zoology on ad...
Tag this Judgment!York Knitwear Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT554
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner-M/s. York Knitwears Pvt. Ltd., by this writ petition, assails the impugned demand raised by the respondents, vide their letter of 20th September, 1991, amounting to Rs.2,65,047/-. Respondents issued a reminder vide their letter dated 23th October, 1991. The aforesaid amount of duty is claimed in respect of wastage of Angora woollen blended yarn weighing 1110.875 kg and vellore fabrics weighing 4150 kg.2. Notice to show cause in the writ petition was issued on 4th April, 1991. Rule was issued on 2nd December, 1991. By interim order passed, the demand was stayed, subject to furnishing of Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.2,65,047/-. The bank guarantee was furnished by petitioner and has been kept alive. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of writ petition may be briefly noted:-(i) Petitioner is a 100% export unit, established within the Noida Export Processing Zone (in brief NEPZ). Petitioner had imported the woollen and vellore fabrics for exporting wool...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Subhash Chand Vs. Govt. of Nct and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT527; 2005(82)DRJ346
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this common judgment I would dispose of the aforementioned two writ petitions, as a common question of law in regard to ambit and scope of powers of the appropriate Government to make or decline a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), arises for consideration, though on somewhat different facts. 2. In order to examine the question of law which requires consideration by the Court, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts of Subhash Chand (Supra) at the very outset, while reference to the facts of the other writ petition could be made towards the later part of the judgment. Subhash Chand, the workman joined the service with Horticulture Department in the Office of Development Commissioner of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20th September, 1987 as a Mali. His services were treated as daily rated muster roll worker. According to the workman, respondent No.2 arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. D.C.M. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)593; 117(2005)DLT733; 2005(80)DRJ365; [2007]290ITR615(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. According to the appellant, in this appeal, under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the question of law as to the scope and meaning of the expression 'land and urban land' chargeable to wealth tax in relation to assets of the assessed for the assessment year 1993-94 under the amended provisions of the Act arises for consideration in the present appeal.2. It is well settled principle of law that a question which has either been answered by the judgment of the Court or on plain reading of the provisions of the relevant section, the interpretation is so clear as not to invite any legal controversy. There the question of law would not arise as contemplated under section 27A of the Act. The provisions of section 27A of the Act are para materia to section 260 of the Income-tax Act. The court should be satisfied that the case in appeal involves a substantial question of law. A Division Bench of this Court, after applying the principl...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)545; 119(2005)DLT562; 2005(80)DRJ491; [2006]282ITR451(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 7.5.2004 dismissed appeals preferred by the assessed in relation to the assessment years 1993-94 to 1998-99 while allowing partially the appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000 by remanding the issue in regard to valuation of car in question as on 31.3.1999. The assessed has impugned this order of the Appellate Tribunal in the afore-stated appeals for the respective assessment years. Thus it will be appropriate to dispose of all these seven Wealth Tax Appeals by a common order.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that in the statement annexed with the return the assessed had given a note that WDVs of the cars does not include the value of Rs.131 lacs for the imported car purchased from Shri Lalit Kumar Bagla knowing that some dispute is pending before the Delhi High Court. The assessed before the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 5.3.1999 stated that a Rolls Royce Car was purchased by the ass...
Tag this Judgment!