Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 24 of about 273 results (0.020 seconds)Tea Consultancy and Plantation Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Del)481; 119(2005)DLT90; 2005(81)DRJ171; [2005]278ITR356(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. A simple but an interesting question of law arises in the present writ petition is to the meaning of the expression 'made' appearing in proviso to Section 80MM of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). The Petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Nilhat House, 11, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Calcutta and is carrying on its business of providing technical services in connection with the plantation and manufacture of tea. For this purpose, it had entered into various agreements for acquiring technical know-how and consultancy with other persons as well. The fee is payable to the Petitioner in lieu of those services and normal tenure of the agreement is usually one year amount payable in quarterly Installments. During the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79 an income of Rs.5,42,365/- accrued from the technical know-how provided by the Petitioner to others. In this regard, 16 agreements had been enter...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modern Spinners Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)462; 118(2005)DLT205; 2005(81)DRJ154; [2006]284ITR308(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is to the interpretation and meaning of the expression 'ascertained liability' in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. The assessed filed a return for the assessment year 1995-96 on 24.11.1995 declaring a loss of Rs. 57,99,781/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without making any adjustment.The Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessed under Section 143(2) and 142(1) Along with a questionnaire on 26th September, 1996 and the case was taken up for scrutiny. While dealing with some other matters in the order of the assessment, the Assessing Officer specifically required the assessed to show cause why provisions of interest of Rs. 49.23 lakhs should not be disallowed as the provisions amounted to unascertained liability. After granting opportunity to the assessed, the deduction for the said amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Remfry and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Viii
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)66; 118(2005)DLT720; [2005]276ITR1(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This Income Tax reference was returned unanswered vide order of the Court dated 5th August, 2004 because nobody was present on behalf of the appellant on that date. The assessed filed an application being CM No. 2034/2005, for recalling of the order dated 5th August, 2004, for restoration of the reference to the file and for hearing of the matter on merits in accordance with law. This application was allowed by the Court vide a detailed order dated 14th February, 2005 vide which order dated 5th August, 2004 was recalled and we directed the matter to be heard on merits.2. On that very day, the matter was heard on merits and reserved for orders.3. The controversy in the present reference revolves around a fine distinction between the expressions 'illegality', 'irregularity', 'procedural irregularity', and whether it is curable or should proved fatal to the case of the assessed?4. Before we proceed to determine the various legal facets of this aspect of law, it would...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Balwant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT458; 2005(81)DRJ412
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this judgment we would dispose of the above noticed 5 writ petitions as in all these writ petitions the Petitioners raised a common challenge to the notice dated 29.7.1986 issued under Section 9 and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and further they pray that the Respondents be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation of the Petitioners. Though, for the purposes of brevity, we would be referring to the facts of the case of Balwant and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.2.The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the Petitioners own land measuring about 3 Bighas 12 bids was in Khasra No.818/468 in Village Saboli, Delhi. The appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act intending to acquire the land in Village Saboli including the land belonging to the Petitioners being notification No.F.4(14)65 L and D dated 6.3.65. In furtherance to this notification declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chand Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT320; 2005(81)DRJ339
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Shri Bharat Singh had two sons, viz., Sri Chand and Sardar Singh. Unfortunately, Sardar Singh died leaving behind his son Ishwar Singh. Bharat Singh is the recorded bhumidar of land bearing khasra nos. 643 (4-16), 646 (4-16), 647/1 (3-16) and 648 (0-14), measuring 14 bigha and 2 biswas, situated in revenue estate of Rajapur Kalan, Delhi to the extent of -+ share.2. The claim of the Petitioner Sri Chand is that the said land was not self acquired property of Bharat Singh, but in fact, he had inherited the same from his father as such both the sons were co-parceners and were co-sharers and owners to the extent of one third share. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Ram Chander v. Commissioner and Director of Consolidation (H.C.), 1970 RD 283. Bharat Singh was in possession as a co-sharer on behalf of all and was shown as such. In 1954-55, the rights of bhumidari alleged to have been recorded in favor of Bharat Singh...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT4; 2005(81)DRJ406; 2005(100)ECC217
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The above noticed 10 writ petitions have been on the 'Regular Board' of this Court for quite sometime. In view of the fact that nobody was appearing on behalf of the parties, we had sent for the counsel appearing for Union of India, and after his appearance on 25.1.2005, we had passed the following order:-% 25.01.2005Present : None for the Petitioner.Mr. Amit Gupta for the Respondent.W.P.(C) No. 1812/1981Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that he needs some time to reconstruct the file.List this case for disposal on 7th February, 2005 in the category of Regular Matters.In the meanwhile, the office of Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Advocate may be informed of the next date of hearing by the Registry by issuance of notice without process fee. The notice shall clearly states that no further adjournment will be allowed. Liberty is granted to counsel appearing for Union of India to inform Mr. Dholakia's office by means of a letter. 2. When the matters were taken up for he...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajan and Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)199; [2007]291ITR340(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. On 30th November, 1990 the assessed filed a return showing an income of Rs.2,29,280/- which was subsequently revised to Rs.2,29,960/- during the period of assessment. Notice under Section 143(2) and 140(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the assessed in response to which the partner of the assessed attended and produced the books of accounts. Besides that, the Assessing Officer added back profit on the undisclosed sales of Rs.28,195/-, It was also detected during a survey under Section 133A at the assessed's premises on 25th September, 1992 that certain loose slips showing sale to different parties and pertaining to the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Thereupon, the assessed surrendered the amount in the assessment years to the tune of Rs.38.37 lacs. Finally, besides making certain additions in the account of the assessed, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.3,20,868/- to the total income of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lalit Bhasin
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)62; [2007]290ITR245(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax is aggrieved from the order dated 3rd August, 2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 69B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not applicable to the case of the assessed in relation to payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Calcutta Stock Exchange through the broker Ajit Kumar Dey of Calcutta. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Department was dismissed by the Tribunal.2. The necessary facts are that the assessed has filed his return of Income-tax on 31.10.91 declaring the net income of Rs.4,06,810/- for the assessment year 1991-92. The matter was taken up for scrutiny and notice was issued under section 143(2) which was served upon the assessed, whose representative appeared. During the course of assessment proceedings, it came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that a ticket for Rs.50,000/- of Calcutta Stock Exchange from Shri Ajit Kumar Dey was...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhai Mohan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)525; [2006]280ITR457(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B (for short the ITAT) has referred the following question for our opinion:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer assumed jurisdiction u/s 147(b) of the Act merely on a change of opinion?2. The assessed is an individual and the relevant accounting year ended on 31st March, 1972. The assessment for the year 1972-73 was completed on an income of Rs.95,871/-. In his return, the assessed had appended the following note:-Interest on money held in Trust Rs.87,869.85 to be assessed in hands of Bhai Sunder Dass and his heirs as in the past.3. While completing the assessment on 27th October, 1972, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) did not discuss the assess ability of the aforesaid amount either in the assessment order or in the proceedings before him.4. Thereafter, on 9th July, 1977, the ITO reopened the assessment under Section 147(b) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)312; [2006]281ITR1(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No. 28/Del/99.2. The Respondent/assessed filed its return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 on 29th November, 1995. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued to the assessed on 29th November, 1996, apparently by registered post. The notice was received, if at all, after that date and in any case after 30th November, 1996.3. According to the assessed, in terms of Section 143(2) of the Act, the notice ought to have been served on it within a period of one year and in any case before 30th November, 1996. Since that was not done, the proceedings initiated against the assessed were not in accordance with law.4. Before the Assessing Officer, this issue was not directly raised but before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT (A)], it was contended by the assessed that it ha...
Tag this Judgment!