Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 26 of about 292 results (0.020 seconds)Sh. Prit Pal Singh Uppal, S/O Sh. Sant Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi), ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT70; 2005(82)DRJ599
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Prit Pal Singh Uppal, the petitioner herein, along with Sh. Inderpal Singh were intercepted by the DRI Officers while leaving for HongKong on 13th March, 2003. Upon personal search, foreign currency equivalent to Indian value of Rs.48,33,000/- was stated to have been recovered from their possession. When they were taken to Patiala, on 14th March, 2003 foreign currency of Rs.2,44,050/- is again stated to have been recovered but no statement of the petitioner was recorded on 14th March, 2003. Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the entire foreign currency under Section 113(d), 113(e) and 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on each of the persons above stated, vide order dated 30th September, 2004. Aggrieved from the said order, appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Vide order dated 19th November, 2004, they were directed to deposit a ...
Tag this Judgment!international Cargo Services Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secreta ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT195; 2005(82)DRJ586; 2006(193)ELT546(Del)
ORDER 1. M/s. International Cargo Services, 40, Moti Bagh-II, Near Nanakpura Gurudwara, New Delhi, are holders of Regulations CHA license No. 61/98 valid up to 24.9.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import and General) New Custom House, New Delhi to transact customs clearance work in the jurisdiction of Delhi Custom Stations.2. Whereas an enquiry is contemplated against the said Custom House Agent by the Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Export, New Custom House, New Delhi, in relation to the alleged involvement of Custom House Agent in an export fraud case in filing Shipping Bill Nos. 612996 dt. 23.05.01 dt. 23.05.01, 6250048 dt. 22.10.01, 6250052 dt. 22.10.01, 6250056 dt. 22.10.01 and 6250059 dt. 22.10.01 on behalf of M/s. Rithambra International, G-54 Ground Floor, Priyanka Towers, Basai Darapur, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, for export of Ready made Garments, wherein the said CHA has failed to discharge the obligation entrusted upon him vide the Custom House Agent License Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Om Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT514
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The Petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and certiorari calling for records of the Respondents and for quashing the acquisition proceedings in relation to Khasra No. 2008/1798/162 measuring 04 bids was situated in Revenue Estate, Karkardooma Illaqa Shahadra, Delhi and also the Notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and the Declaration dated 2.1.1969 issued under Section 6 of the Act.2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of property No.65, South Dharona Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi measuring around 200 sq. yards in the Khasra No. afore-stated. The property was acquired evacuee property under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 vide Notification dated 7.7.1955 issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, New Delhi. The property c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Mehar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors./anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT499; 2005(82)DRJ423
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The Explanationn submitted by the Registry is accepted.2. At the oral request of learned counsel for the respondent Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, is substituted by the new entity, North Delhi Power Limited. Amended memo of parties be filed within a week.3. There are two sets of appeals, which will form subject matter of adjudication by the present judgment. The first set of appeals is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation determined in terms of the impugned judgment of learned Additional District Judge on a reference being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ). The second set of appeals is filed by the Union of India through Land Acquisition Collector justifying determination of the value of land made by him and seeking to set aside enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court.4. The land in question is situated at Village Bawana, which was acquired for a pub...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Kumkum Kohli
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)538; [2005]276ITR589(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Vide order dt. 19th April, 2002, the Tribunal held as under :'After hearing both the parties, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessed by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vidya Madan Lal Malani (supra) wherein it has been held that if the income returned by the assessed is from disclosed sources then no addition can be made on account of undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B merely on the ground that the return of such income was not filed before the date of search. This view also finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sham Lal Balram Gurbani (supra). The statement of assessable income of the assessed for asst. yr. 1995-96 shows that assessed had income by way of capital gain amounting to Rs. 23,05,357 against which the assessed had paid advance tax of Rs. 4,50,000 on 31st March, 1995, i.e., much before the date of search and, thereforee, it cannot be said that assessed would not have ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo-kenyan Industrial Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)78
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. On 28th Oct., 1998, the assessed filed his return of income declaring taxable income of Rs. 10,410. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Later, case being taken up for scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessed who attended proceedings and where after the AO vide his order dt. 28th March, 2001, assessed the total income at Rs. 49,24,110. Against this addition, the assessed also filed objections which were considered and as the reply was found to be unsatisfactory, the AO directed charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act as well as initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The order of the AO was improvement (affirmed) in an appeal preferred by the assessed before the CIT(A), who vide his order dt. 24th Dec., 2002, dismissed the same. Dissatisfied with this, the assessed preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Chand JaIn Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)541; [2005]277ITR429(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are that Sh. Kamal Chand Jain, assessed, filed the return for the asst. yr. 1991-92 on 4th Oct., 1991, declaring the net income of Rs. 1,00,880. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) with the approval of the competent authority. Notices were issued to the assessed and after providing opportunity to the assessed, the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,77,950 in terms of the surrender made by the assessed vide his letter dt. 18th Oct., 1993. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the same order, though separately. Vide his order dt. 21st Nov., 1995, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessed. However, in regard to the initiation of penalty proceedings on the surrender of the income of Rs. 3,77,950, it was held that the appeal was premature as no penalty had been imposed by that t...
Tag this Judgment!Elmer Havell Electrics and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)316; [2005]277ITR549(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The appellant/assessed questions the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in ITA No. 1908/Del/2000 for the asst. yr. 1996-97, dt. 12th Feb., 2004, vide which the appeal preferred by the Revenue was accepted and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessed had filed his return for the asst. yr. 1996-97. The AO by a detailed order dt. 17th Feb., 1999, assessed the total income at Rs. 1,37,89,107. This order of the AO was challenged in appeal by the assessed before the CIT(A), New Delhi. Vide his order dt. 14th Jan., 2000, he dealt with various grounds raised by the assessed and the claim raised under ground No. 3 relating to interest of Rs. 2,61,193 charged from M/s Toolman Engineers, wherein the assessed had advanced an amount of Rs. 34,42,850 as interest-free loan to the said concern.2. The order...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Cycles and Tubes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]281ITR225(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. CIT being aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, dt. 28th Aug., 2003, has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is contended that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court in the present appeal :'(A) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the order passed by the AO under Section 154 of the IT Act ?(B) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the allowability of claim of payments towards Provident Fund (PF), Family Pension (FP), Employees State Insurance (ESI) and administrative charges are debatable issues and cannot be termed as mistake apparent on record ?'2. The assessed had filed his return for the asst. yr. 1992-93 and assessment was completed vide order dt. 20th Jan., 1994, under Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,95,900. The AO issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act stating why the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jyotsna Holding (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]284ITR121(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above six income-tax appeals referred to by the Revenue. For the purposes of brevity, we are referring to the facts as stated in IT Appeal No. 167 of 2005.2. According to the appellant, following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal for adjudication by this Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'(a.) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in granting the interest under Section 244(1A) of the IT Act to the assessed from 28th March, 1988 to the date of adjustment, i.e., 25th July, 1991 and thereafter again from 28th March, 1988 to the date of grant of refund on the principal sum ?(b) Whether Tribunal has correctly interpreted the provisions of Sections. 237, 240, 241, 244 and 245 of the IT Act ?'3. The assessed filed his return for the asst. yr. 1987-88 on 31st July, 1987. A sum of Rs. 3,23,68,834 was paid as self-assessment tax on 12th Sept., 1987. ...
Tag this Judgment!