Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1992)105CTR(Del)5; ILR1992Delhi1037
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred a few questions of law to this court. Though most of the questions are overlapping, we shall, however, deal with the questions separately. For the assessment year 1968-69 : In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the Tribunal has referred six questions of law to this court. These are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of blocks and toolings of Rs. 22,750 acquired and used in the previous year 1967-68 relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the grounds regarding the computation of capital employed in the industrial undertaking and the quantum of deduction und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)43ITD447(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are directed against the order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi. They involve common controversy and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The controversy is in connection with addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. On 10th December, 1987 during the search operations under Section 132 of the Act, the department found that deposits aggregating in all to Rs. 21.67 lakhs in the name of the assessee as also in the names of the assessee's minor children were found. On the day of search the assessee admitted ownership of the deposits in a statement recorded. In a statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee denied having any knowledge as to the sources of the deposits.All the deposits were with National Confederation of Bank Employees Society Ltd. On 8th January, 1988 i.e., after a month of the statement at the time of search, she again admitted the ownershi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1993)45TTJ(Del)503
ORDERGORADIA, A. M. :All these appeals are directed against the order dt. 5th Sept., 1991 passed by the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi. They involve common controversy and, thereforee, they are disposed of by this common order. The controversy is in connection with addition under S. 69 of the IT Act, 1961.2. On 10th Dec., 1987, during the search operations under S. 132 of the Act, the Department found that deposits aggregating in all to Rs. 21.67 lakhs in the name of the assessed as also in the names of the assesseds minor children were found. On the day of search the assessed admitted ownership of the deposits in a statement recorded. In a statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings the assessed denied having any knowledge as to the sources of the deposits. All the deposits were with National Confederation of Bank Employees Society Ltd. On 8th Jan., 1988, i.e., after a month of the statement at the time of search, she again admitted the ownership and also declared the amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi75; 1993(27)DRJ562; ILR1994Delhi131
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. The foremost question in issue in this case is whether or not Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (for short 'FARE Act') is applicable to the arbitration agreement contained in the underlying contract executed by and between Gas Authority of India (for short 'GAIL') on the one hand and SPIE CAPAG, S.A., NKK Corporation and Toyo Engineering Corporation (for short 'Consortium') on the other. The second question which arises is : If Section 3 of the FARE Act is applicable then whether or not proceedings before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (respondent No. 4), initiated by the Consortium for appointment of three member Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the claims raised by it against GAIL, should be permitted to continue. 2. The facts of the case may be stated as under : GAIL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Hotel Samrat, Chan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIAD(Delhi)445; 1994CriLJ2502; 54(1994)DLT380; 1994(29)DRJ407
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. A telegram received from under-trial Kuldip Singh who was confined in Central Jail, Delhi, was treated as a writ petition which is being disposed of by this judgment. The telegram bears the stamp of Telegraph office dated 9th October, 1990. It has been, inter alia, alleged in the telegram that on 5th October, 1990 Deputy Superintendent of Jail No. 4 Sh. Garg who was having old enmity against Kuldip Singh gave ruthless beatings, with rods and dandas and Kuldip Singh received severe injuries all over the body; the said injuries were grevious; he was left unconscious; the medical aid was provided to him and that his life was in danger. Alleging in the telegram that no report was registered by the Police, directions have been sought for registration of a case against Garg and his associates. The telegram purports to have been sent by Kuldip Singh through Satnam Singh. 2. By orders dated 17th October, 1990 while issuing notice to respondents to show cause why the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 55(1994)DLT217; 1994(30)DRJ178
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. In the year 1977 a large number of Army Personnel were suspected of being involved in espionage activities with Pakistan. This was known as the Samha Spy scandal. Some of the personnel were tried and convicted while services of those personnel in respect of whom there was only a suspicion were terminated under Section 18 of the Army Act. These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by those persons whose services were terminated under Section 18 of the Army Act. 2. When the appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court it was contended by the appellants that the order of termination though purported to have been passed under Section 18 of the Army Act by and in the name of the President by exercising his presidential prerogative, in facts, the order was one of dismissal on the ground of misconduct. It was submitted that the order of termination was a camouflage and on lifting the veil it would be apparent that the dismissal was by way of punis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(79)ELT485TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 24-4-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, confirming demand of duty of Rs. 14,69,880/- on 4 milling machines viz. 2 Nos. HB 630 and 2 Nos. VA 50 imported by the appellants in terms of Phased Manufacturing Programme with agreement with M/s. Hitachi Seiki Company of Japan and imposing penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the appellants and Rs. 10,000/- upon Shri Chokor L. Doshi, Managing Director of the company and Rs. 5,000/- upon Shri M. Mohan Das, General Manager of the Cooper Division of the company.2. The facts leading up to the filing of the appeals are briefly as follows: The appellants are a DGTD Unit who obtained approval for a Phased Manufacturing Programme (hereinafter referred to PMP) for the manufacture of machining centres in collaboration with M/s. Hitachi Seiki of Japan. Under Phase-1 of approved PMP, the appellants were permitted to import 10 machining centres (2 pieces each of 5 models proposed to be manufactured VA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT241TriDel
1. M/s. Ranutrol Ltd. of New Delhi have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs.The Collector of Customs in his Order-in-Original had held : "I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1.962. However, I allow the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Assessable value of the subject consignment shall be worked as shown in the Annexure to this order. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Option to redeem the goods should be exercised within a month. Penalty shall be paid forthwith." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Bill of Entry on 31-10-1990 declaring the goods as component parts of Expansion Valve and component parts of Dial Thermometers. The value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 4,99,209.00 c.i.f. The importers also claimed clearance of the goods under OGL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1996Delhi172; [1996]85CompCas230(Delhi)
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed chfallenging the order dated 19th December, 1994 of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short the Appellate Authority) dismissing the two separate appeals of the petitioners by a common judgment; substantially confirming the order dated 6/16 June, 1994 passed by the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction 'BIFR' for short). Both the authorities, namely, the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, have been constituted under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' or 'Act', for short) under which proceedings had been held and impugned orders made. The sick industrial company, as defined under clause (o) of Section 3 of the SICA, in the present case is Andhra Cement Limited (ACL). Petition bearing No. 5184/94 has been filed by Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and five other petitioners constitutin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 61(1996)DLT206; 1996(36)DRJ34
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) A large number of writ petitions have been referred for being decided by this Full Bench as all of them involve some important common questions of law besides some writ petitions having, in addition, certain additional points for decision. We shall, at first, deal with the disputed questions of law and facts which arc common to all the petitions and thereafter shall deal with individual cases with regard to their additional points.(2) The challenge in all these writ petitions is to the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land belonging to the petitioners in pursuance to the various notifications issued from time to time for the common public object of planned development of Delhi. The Master Plan of Delhi, which came into force in 1962, in its Introduction, gives the broad background in which it became necessary to have the growth of the city planned in a more scientific and modern way. As indicated in the Master Plan, in order to check the haphazard and unplann...
Tag this Judgment!