Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 19 of about 292 results (0.022 seconds)Dss Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs. Bharti Mobinet Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)6CompLJ337(Del); 2005(83)DRJ584
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant, DSS Enterprises Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as DSS) is aggrieved by orders dated 29th July 2003 and 7th May 2004 passed by the learned Company Judge in C.P. No. 167 of 2003.2. The facts of the case, as presented to us, appeared somewhat complicated necessitating a hearing of the appeal on several dates, that is, 10th, 14th, 15th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd February, 2005 when judgment was reserved. However, on reflection we find the issue raised is rather undemanding, though compounded by large stakes and complicated by an extremely voluminous reply with affidavit and annexures running into over 1200 pages.3. The trigger is the sanctioning of a Scheme of Arrangement between Bharti Telenet Ltd., Bharti Mobinet Ltd. and Bharti Cellular Ltd. by the learned Company Judge by an order dated 29th July 2003. According to DSS, sanction was obtained without disclosing all material facts to the learned Judge, thereby playing a fraud upon the Court. DSS says ...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Institute of the Franciscan ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)582
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue has preferred five appeals claiming that a question of law arises out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) to the effect that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT) erred in allowing the benefit of Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Respondent/assessed.2. The facts as they appear from the order of the Tribunal clearly show that the assessed is running several schools (about 16 in number) employing more than one thousand teachers and nuns and imparting education to several thousand students. There is no doubt, as held by the authorities under the Act, that the assessed was carrying on charitable activities but the question was whether it was existing solely for educational purposes.3. According to the Assessing Officer, the fact that the assessed was also running a dispensary, an orphanage and a church shows that the assessed was not carrying out activities only for educational purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Farooq and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT377; 2005(82)DRJ276
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Petitioners claim that they are the co-owners of the land measuring 6 bids was in Khasra No. 124 situated within the revenue estate of Village Okhla, Delhi. This land was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 4.4.1964, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In furtherance to this notification, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th December, 1966. This land was acquired for planned development of Delhi. The Collector had issued notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1983 in furtherance to which the Petitioners had filed claims. An award relating to the lands adjacent to the Petitioners' land was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 20th July, 1983 but the land of the Petitioner was left out. It is also averred by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition that the land of the Petitioner which is now sought to be acquired was earlier left out from awa...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kanwar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT348; 2005(82)DRJ397
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Act' ) on 25.10.1979 in respect of the land situated in Village Bohargarh, Delhi. The appellants land was also notified under the said notification. A declaration was also issued under Section 6 of the Act read with Section 17(4) of the Act on the same date. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) determined the market value of land at Rs. 4,300/- per bigha in terms of the Award No. 58/80-81 dated 19.08.1980.2. The appellants aggrieved by the same sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. The appellants were still not satisfied and preferred an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, which has resulted in the impugned order whereby the compensation has been determined at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha.3. At the stage when the appeal was filed, the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Bale Ram S/O Late Sh. Bansi Ram Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ179
ORDERReference U/s 18 of the L.A. Act made By Shri Bale Ram S/o Shri Bansi Ram resident of Vill-Usmanpur, Delhi, against Award No. 13/92-93 dated19-06-92 of Village Garhi Mendu has been considered by the Competent Authority.The Award was announced on 19-06-92. The reference U/s 18 of the L.A. Act was made on 03.06.2002. thereforee, the reference was not made within 6 months of Award as provided in the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the reference is 'Time Barred'.Hence the reference filed by Shri Bale Ram is hereby rejected.(C.R. GARG)LAND ACQUISITON COLLECtor/A.D.M. (NORTH EAST)W.P.(C) NO. 1850/2005...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Excellent Commercial Enterprises and In ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)187; 122(2005)DLT72; 2005(83)DRJ193; [2006]282ITR423(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Before the Income-tax appellate Tribunal, Income-tax Officer Ward-II, New Delhi while preferring an appeal against the order of the Commissioner Income-tax, (Appeals) dated 1.12.1999 relating to the Assessing year 1996-97, raised the following issue :-'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) was not justified in directing the A.O. to set off the unabsorbed b/f losses against dividend income which is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as income from other sources and not income from business or profession.'2. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal answering the issue in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue.3. The necessary facts are that assessed filed return of income declaring `Nil income' on 26th November, 1996. The case was processed under section 143 and was taken up for scrutiny after issuance of notice to the assessed under section 132. During the relevant year, th...
Tag this Judgment!Orwo Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT39; 2005(83)DRJ97; [2005]142STC164(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying that the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax be required to stay the case and refer the following questions of law for determination:-'1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Tribunal Sales Tax was justified in upholding the levy of penalty in respect of tax payable on sales made to M/s. Oriental Trading Corpn.2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the degree of proof required for levying penalty in respect of sale made to M/s. Oriental Trading Corpn. should have been larger as compared to the sales made to other four dealers.3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case there was any mensrea on the part of the applicant company to furnish inaccurate particulars of sales so far as sales made to M/s. Oriental Trading Corpn. were concerned.4. Whether under the facts and cir...
Tag this Judgment!Sony India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Addl. Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)81; 2005(83)DRJ75; [2005]276ITR278(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, a limited company, is engaged in the business of marketing, sales and servicing of consumer electronic and audio-visual products in India. The Company is a regular income tax payee. It claims that as on 31st March, 2005, it had assets worth more than 350 crores and its turn-over was more than 840 crores giving a profit of more than 19 crores. For the assessment year 2002-2003, a return declaring income of Rs.8,71,08,860/- was filed by the company on 31st October, 2002. Book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was calculated at a loss of Rs.34,30,515/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 25th February, 2003. The assessed filed a revised return on 31st January, 2004 showing an income of Rs.8,67,46,730/- and book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were shown at a loss of Rs.30,17,013/-. This revised return was processed on 18th June, 2004. The case for the assessment year was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.D. Khaitan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)196
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The main question raised by the Revenue in these appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, is as under:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the higher rate of depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent to the assessed instead of normal rate of 25 per cent on lorries ?' 2. This question was answered by the Tribunal in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue, vide its order dt. 30th Dec., 2003, in ITA No. 2701/Del/2000 by holding as under:'6. We have heard the appellant Department and have also perused the orders of the lower authorities and we proceed with the issue in the following lines. At the outset, we may state that the Revenue has to fail in the present appeals. A gainful reference can be made to the orders of the CIT(A) wherein the issue has been discussed in an appropriate manner, which we are tempted to reproduce as under :'There is no doubt about the fact that the assessed has derived income by way of lease rental. It is also a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Excellent Commercial Enterprises and Investment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN558(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Income Tax Officer, Ward-II, New Delhi while preferring an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 1-12-1999 relating to the assessing year 1996-97, raised the following issue :'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing the assessing officer, to set-off the unabsorbed b/f losses against dividend income which is chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(t) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as income from other sources and not income from business or profession.'2. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal answering the issue in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.3. The necessary facts are that assessed filed return of income declaring 'Nil income' on 26-11-1996. The case was processed under section 143(1A) and was taken up for scrutiny after issuance of notice to the assessed under section 132(2). During the relevant year, the assessed...
Tag this Judgment!