Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 27 of about 296 results (0.020 seconds)Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Sardar Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT63; 2005(80)DRJ611; [2005(105)FLR1124]; (2005)IILLJ430Del; 2006(1)SLJ222(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This case was taken out for re-hearing at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman Shri Sardar Singh. In fact, the judgment in this case was reserved on 9.12.2004 but on the request of counsel for the workman the case was taken up and further arguments have also been heard.2. The Delhi Transport Corporation questions the correctness of the award dated 16.9.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court VIIIth, Delhi in I.D. No. 370 of 1997.3. The Delhi Transport Corporation is a body corporate created under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 read with the Delhi Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 having perpetual succession and common seal. The corporation is involved in providing transportation in Delhi. The workman Sardar Singh was appointed as a Conductor with the corporation on daily wages on 8.8.1978. The services of the workman was regularised on 9.3.1979. According to the management the workman was abse...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanwant Singh Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT199; 2005(80)DRJ618
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.Issue Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken-up for final disposal.2. This petition is directed against an order/action sealing of premises taken by the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter called 'the MCD'). The petitioner is the owner and occupier of several portions of property bearing No. C-14, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as 'the suit premises'). It is averred that the suit premises were purchased by the petitioner in 1998. The property is built on a 400 square yard plot.3. Sometime in the year 2000 the MCD took action by way of partially demolishing the suit premises on account of unauthorised construction. The petitioner avers that in February 2001, it secured a license under Section 421 of the Municipal Corporation Act (hereafter called 'the Act') for running eating house in respect of the ground and first floor of the suit premises. It is also claimed that the license was further renewed and is in ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)567; 118(2005)DLT19; [2007]289ITR318(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. It is often said, though mistakenly, that consistency is the virtue of fools. The complete lack of it by the Revenue (as the facts of this batch of cases demonstrates) really puts the theory to an acid test.2. Three companies, M/s. Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s. R.K.K.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. R.K.K.R. International Pvt. Ltd. purchased property bearing No. 12, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi by a sale deed dated 22nd July, 1972 for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was then let out to two directors of these companies at Rs. 22,500/- per month.3. When the question of valuing the property came up before the Wealth Tax Officer, for the relevant assessment year 1985-86, he was of the view that it should be valued at Rs. 7,50,00,000/-. Since the assessed was 1/3rd owner of the property, its net wealth was valued at Rs. 2,50,00,000/-.4. Feeling aggrieved, all three companies filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal) [for short CWT(A)] who was of the view th...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Mohan Gupta Vs. Ganga Dutt Bhardwaj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC297; 118(2005)DLT116; (2005)140PLR22
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. This petition is directed against the Order dated 19th May, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 80/2002 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC.2. Briefly stated facts of this case are that the petitioner had filed a suit; against the respondent for recovery of damages of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The respondent had failed to file the written statement within 90 days in terms of the amendment in Order 8, CPC. The petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC for pronouncement of judgment, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence the present petition.3. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present revision petition.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. In terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Revision can be entertained only in respect of the order, if it had been made in favor of party applying for revision, wo...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdish Chander
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT664; (2005)IIILLJ390Del
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The law whether legislatively enacted or which finds its origin from the predicated judicial pronouncements, commonly known as Judge made law, is essentially mutable and progressive. It normally tilts in favor of the need of the developing society while keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by the provisions of a given statute. Absolute, strict or rigid interpretation of law can some time cause results which may not be conducive for the attainment of social goal by enforcement of the provisions of the Act. This concept is applicable with greater emphasis to social welfare legislations. Peter Muller said what is lasting is not what resists time but wisely changes with it. Often it is said that law must be understood and implemented in its correct perspective keeping in mind the constitutional mandate, attainment of ultimate legislative object and ends of justice. A legislation with its limitations reflects the vision of the society, the law makers and it...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Prop Surya Trading Vs. Dy Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN865(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.Rajesh Kumar and three other petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Arts. 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 Dy. CIT, 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 account of the assessed. Thus, the order being beyond the scope of the relevant provision is even without jurisdiction.3. In order to ...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. R.K.K.R. Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2006)198CTR(Del)567
Madan B. Lokur, J. :It is often said, though mistakenly, that consistency is the virtue of fools. The complete lack of it by the revenue (as the facts of this batch of cases demonstrates) really puts the theory to an acid test.2. Three companies, M/s. Allied Finance (P) Ltd., M/s. R.K.K.R. Industries (P) Ltd. and M/s. R.K.K.R. International (P) Ltd. purchased property bearing No. 12, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi, by a sale deed dated 22-7-1972, for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000. It was then let out to two directors of these companies at Rs. 22,500 per month.3. When the question of valuing the property came up before the Wealth Tax Officer, for the relevant assessment year 1985-86, he was of the view that it should be valued at Rs. 7,50,00,000. Since the assessed was 1/3rd owner of the property, its net wealth was, valued at Rs. 2, 50, 00, 000.4. Feeling aggrieved, all three companies filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CWT (A)) who was of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Rakr. International (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)528; [2005]145TAXMAN322(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. It is often said, though mistakenly, that consistency is the virtue of fools. The complete lack of it by the revenue (as the facts of this batch of cases demonstrates) really puts the theory to an acid test.2. Three companies, M/s. Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s. R.K.K.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. R.K.K.R. International Pvt. Ltd. purchased property bearing No. 12, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi by a sale deed dated 22-7-1972 for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000. It was then let out to two directors of these companies at Rs. 22,500 per month.3. When the question of valuing the property came up before the Wealth tax Officer, for the relevant assessment year 1985-86, he was of the view that it should be valued at Rs. 7,50,00,000. Since the assessed was 1/3rd owner of the property, its net wealth was valued at Rs. 2,50,00,000.4. Feeling aggrieved, all three companies filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) [for short CWT(A)] who was of the view that the value of...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Akash Deep Promotors and Developers (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)99; [2005]146TAXMAN389(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the assessed challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 29-4-2004 passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01. The Tribunal while relying upon its earlier order passed in the case of Delhi Towers & Estates (P) Ltd., one of the associate companies of the same developer company, held that the assessed- company is entitled to deduction of income-tax (sic) paid to the developer company.2. Necessary facts are that the respondent-company was engaged in real estate business and for the relevant year W filed a return declaring the loss of Rs. 82,030. According to the assessed it had paid additional service charges of Rs. 5,37,732 to one of its associate companies M/s APIL. The assessing officer found that it had entered into a collaboration agreement with the developer company on 3-12-1991 including various other companies. Relying upon the terms o...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Keshav Social and Charitable Fo ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]278ITR152(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 10-1-2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, New Delhi (herein after referred to as the ITAT) in ITA No. 2827/Delhi/96 for the assessment year 1991-92.2. The assessed is a charitable trust and its main activity is to provide medical advise to the poor and needy in various parts of Uttar Pradesh. It has mobile vans and its doctors visit remote villages in these mobile vans.3. During the relevant previous year, the assessed received donations amounting to Rs. 18,24,200. The assessed was asked to furnish details of these donations, that is, the names and addresses of the donors and the mode of receipt of donations. It is noted in the assessment order dated 29-3-1994 that the assessed was unable to satisfactorily explain the donations and the donors were perhaps fictitious persons. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessed had tried to introduce unaccounted money into its books by way ...
Tag this Judgment!