Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 6 of about 266 results (0.044 seconds)

Feb 25 2003 (HC)

Jagannath Dudadhar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-25-2003

Reported in : [2004]136STC235(Delhi)

orderd.k. jain, j.1. on being pointed out that five independent dealers, with different demands, cannot be permitted to file a common petition, mr. r.c. chawla, learned counsel for the petitioners, prays that the present petition may be confined to the first petitioner, namely, m/s. jagannath dudadhar. we order accordingly.2. the challenge in this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, is to a consolidated order dated october 31, 2002/november 7, 2002, passed by the appellate tribunal, sales tax, delhi (for short 'the tribunal'), under section 43(5) of the delhi sales tax act, 1975 (for short 'the act'), in appeals nos. 51 to 53/stt/02-03, pertaining to the assessment years 1998-99 (local and central) and 1999-2000 (local) respectively. by the impugned order, the tribunal has directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of rs. 5,08,40,000 as a pre-condition for entertaining their appeals pending before the additional commissioner (appeals). out of the said amount, a sum of rs. 3,21,00,000 has been directed to be deposited in cash and for the remaining amount, the petitioner is required to furnish surety.3. shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the present petition, are that during the course of assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment years, the assessing officer while noticing that sales claimed to have been made to registered dealers were not proved and there had been contravention of the declarations on which purchases .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2003 (HC)

Meenu Sharma and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-26-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)114; AIR2003Delhi334; 104(2003)DLT370; I(2003)DMC717; 2003(68)DRJ368; 2003(2)JCC819

a.k. sikri, j. 1. in a war of wits between husband and wife, child is made a pawn. petitioner no. 1 is the wife and respondent no. 4 is her husband. relations between them have soured; may be beyond repairs. respondent no. 4 is accusing wife of illicit relations with one ajay singh who is sub-inspector in delhi police. respondent no. 4 has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner no. 1, inter alia, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery and illicit relationship between petitioner no. 1 and si ajay singh amounting to cruelty. parties have two children; one is named aakriti who is a daughter aged 13 years and is arrayed as petitioner no. 2 in this petition. another child is son aged 9 years. both the children are with father. petitioner no. 1 has filed petition for custody of these children which is also pending adjudication. 2. however, we are not concerned, in this petition, with any matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4. the acrimonious relationship between husband and wife has taken curious turn which has led to present proceedings. respondent no. 4 made complaint to the employer of si ajay singh alleging his illicit relationship with petitioner no. 1. it has resulted into initiation of departmental enquiry against si ajay singh. this enquiry is in progress. it is governed by the delhi police (punishment and appeal) rules, 1980. prosecution and defense witnesses have already been examined. rule 16-viiith of the delhi police (punishment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raunaq and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-27-2003

Reported in : [2003]262ITR86(Delhi)

d.k. jain, j.1. at the instance of the revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the income-tax appellate tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') has referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), the following question for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of benefit or amenity relating to expenses on car for the purpose of applying the provisions of section 40(c) of the income-tax act has to be restricted to the assessable value of such benefit or amenity as perquisite in the hands of the employee-director ?'2. we have heard learned counsel for the revenue. there is no appearance on behalf of the assessed.3. as is evident from the format of the question, the issue raised by the revenue is purely legal and, thereforee, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. suffice it to note that the issue involved is as to whether for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40(c) of the act in the hands of the employer, the value of the perquisite has to be taken as the same amount which has been determined in the hands of the employee in accordance with the relevant rules or on the basis of the actual amount paid to the employee.4. the issue raised is no more rest integra. a similar question came up for consideration of the apex court in cit v. british bank of middle east : [2001]251itr217(sc) , wherein while dealing with the question of disallowance of excess expenditure incurred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2003 (HC)

Steel Marketing Co. of India and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-28-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)9; 103(2003)DLT792; 2003(66)DRJ256; 2003(88)ECC119; 2003(161)ELT134(Del)

a.k. sikri, j. 1. in this writ petition the petitioners are seeking to challenge the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to release skimmed milk powder imported by the petitioners. the case of the petitioners is that two concerns, viz. m/s. ventura, greater kailash, new delhi and m/s. saraf textiles pvt. ltd. who were recognized and established export houses were issued initial licenses. the respondents permitted the imports to be made by the license holder through their agents in whose name letter of authority were issued by the licensing authority. the petitioners at the request of license holder have been issued letters of authority for the import of permissible items on the basis of said letter of authority. 2. the petitioners entered into an agreement with m/s. a.h. gandhi for the import of skimmed milk powder valued at rs.9 lakhs. in order to ensure the payment of the same, two letters of credit both dated 1.4.1978 were opened. the goods so imported arrived at bombay port in july,1978. the petitioners on 28.7.1978 filed different bill of entries as there were different bills of lading. it is stated that as per notification dated 2.8.1976 issued by the customs authorities skimmed milk powder is required to have a fat content more than 4 per cent. milk which was imported by the petitioners was got examined by the customs authorities and it was found to contain fat contents less than 4 per cent and as such it was skimmed milk powder as per the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2003 (HC)

Director General of Income Tax Vs. A.A.i.F.R.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-04-2003

Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN251(Delhi)

orderthis writ petition by the director general of income tax (admn.), new delhi is directed against the order dated 17-11-2000, passed by the appellate authority for industrial & financial reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the aaifr), dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the board for industrial & financial reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the bifr') on 9-7-1999 in case no. 60/99, declaring m/s. amitabh bachchan corpn. ltd., respondent no. 3 herein, as a sick industrial company.2. the main grievance of the petitioner before the aaifr was that the bifr has held the demand created by the income tax department against respondent no. 3 as a contingent liability, without affording an opportunity of being heard, with the result that the income tax department will not be in a position to recover its dues because these will not be treated as part of the liabilities of the company.3. we have heard mr. sanjiv khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue and dr. debi pal, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3.4. during the course of arguments, it is pointed out by dr. pal that the said respondent has already given an undertaking before the bifr, which forms part of the summary record of the proceedings of bearing, held on 5-12-2002, which reads as under:'the bench recalled that at the hearing held on 9-7-1999, the bench had declared the company m/s. amitabh bachchan corpn. ltd. (since re named a.b. corpn. ltd.) (hereinafter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2003 (HC)

Director General of Income Tax Vs. A.A.i.F.R. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-04-2003

Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Del)663

order1. this writ petition by the director general of income-tax (admn.), new delhi, is directed against the order dt. 17th nov., 2000, passed by the appellate authority for industrial & financial reconstruction (for short 'the aaifr'), dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the board for industrial & financial reconstruction (for short 'the bifr') on 9th july, 1999, in case no. 60/99, declaring m/s amitabh bachchan corpn. ltd., respondent no. 3 herein, as a sick industrial company.2. the main grievance of the petitioner before the aifr was that the bifr has held the demand created by the it department against respondent no. 3 as a contingent liability, without affording an opportunity of being heard, with the result that the it department will not be in a position to recover its dues because these will not be treated a's part of the liabilities of the company.3. we have heard mr. sanjiv khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, and dr. debi pal, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3.4. during the course of arguments, it is pointed out by dr. pal that the said respondent has already given an undertaking before the bifr, which forms part of the summary record of the proceedings of hearing, held on 5th dec., 2002, which reads as under:'the bench recalled that at the hearing held on 9th july, 1999, the bench had declared the company m/s amitabh bachchan corpn. ltd. (since renamed a.b, corp. ltd.) (abcl) a sick industrial company under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2003 (HC)

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-06-2003

Reported in : (2003)183CTR(Del)326

d.k. jain, j. 1. at the instance of the assessed, the income-tax appellate tribunal, new delhi (for short 'the tribunal'), has referred under section 256(1) of the it act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), the following questions for our opinion : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 1,00,332 on account of difference in foreign exchange rate is allowable as a revenue expenditure ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to extra-shift allowance amounting to rs. 84,273 in respect of its calcutta factory ? 3. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of : (i) certificate of original fee; (ii) stamp on export bills; (iii) freight charges; (iv) insurance charges: (v) clearing agent commission/port charges; (vi) inspection charges; (vii) octroi; (viii) service charges (payment to shipping agents); (ix) port charges; (x) coolie charges.' 2. the reference relates to the asst. yr. 1976-77 and arises out of ita 3885/del of 1980, the assessed is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture of fans, sewing machines, electric motors, etc. during the course of assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year, it was noticed by the ao that the assessed had made a claim of rs. 1,00,332 on account of difference in foreign exchange. the assessed had debited the said amount as representing difference in foreign .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel and Restaurant Association

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-10-2003

Reported in : (2003)182CTR(Del)374; [2003]261ITR190(Delhi)

d.k. jain, j.1. this appeal by the revenue under section 260a of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), is directed against the order dated july 22, 2002, passed by the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench smc-i, new delhi, in i. t. a. no. 174/delhi of 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93. the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law, have been proposed in the appeal memo. : 'a. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in holding that the accumulation of income by the assessed under section 11(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), for all objects for which the trust was created and not for specific purpose was neither prejudicial nor erroneous to the interests of the revenue b. whether section 11(2) of the act makes it necessary for the assessed to make specific mention of any purpose or purposes to enable it to accumulate the income ?' 2. briefly stated the material facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the respondent-assessed is a company registered under section 25 of the companies act, 1956. it had been granted registration under section 12a(a) of the act. for the relevant previous year ending march 31, 1992, by means of a resolution, the assessed decided to accumulate its income for a period of ten years for fulfillment of the objects for which it had been created. notice to that effect was given by filing the requisite statutory form, giving .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2003 (TRI)

Anju Devi Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-2003

Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT579TriDel

1. in these two appeals, filed by smt. anju devi and shree sanatan dev goswami, the common issue involved is whether the appeals filed by them against order-in-original no. 75/a & r/vs/97, dated 3-10-1997 passed by the commissioner of customs are maintainable under section 129a of the customs act.2. briefly stated the facts are that the officers of directorate of revenue intelligence intercepted a tata mobile van no. mp 09d 8093 on 30-8-1991 at shahjahanpur police post; that the search of the said van resulted in the recovery and seizure of 581 slabs of silver weighing 702.780 kgs. and valued at rs. 47,08,626/- from five specially built secret cavities; that rajendra kumar, driver, in his statement dated 31-8-91 deposed that one kanchan aggarwal of mathura appointed him as his driver; that kanchan aggarwal purchased the said mobile van which was registered in the name of one manoj kumar which was later on transferred in the name of dinesh aggarwal of indore; that one dinesh kumar of mathura took the mobile van to one garage and got the cavities made; that before 15th august he brought silver weighing about 700 kg.approx. from beawar alongwith dinesh and delivered the same to kanchan aggarwal; that in the present trip he went to beawar from mathura alongwith one bharat and met one rangwala near railway station as per the direction of kanchan aggarwal; that rangwala took away the vehicle, returned after about six hours and told them that he had concealed smuggled silver in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2003 (HC)

Suraj Prakash Chopra Raj Kumar Vs. Baij Nath Dhawan and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)705; 103(2003)DLT645; 2003(69)DRJ431

mahmood ali khan, j. 1. this second appeal under section 39 of delhi rent control act (for short the act) is filed challenging an order of additional rent control tribunal (for short the tribunal) whereby tenant's appeal assailing an order of the additional rent controller (for short the controller) passed on the ground of eviction under clause (j) of section 14(1) of the act was decided.2. the respondent baij nath dhawan (hereinafter the landlord) sought eviction of his tenant suraj parkash chopra raj kumar (hereinafter the tenant) from a portion of the premises no. g-24, ndse part-i, new delhi under clauses (b), (c) and (j) of section 14(1) of the act. the controller disallowed eviction of the tenant under clauses (b) and (c) of section 14(1) of the act. the said order is not under challenge. but under clause (j) of section 14(1) the controller upheld the contention of the landlord that substantial damage has been caused to the tenancy premises. he accordingly directed the tenant to repair the damages caused by (a) construction of walls; changing the situation of the door of the w.c.; blocking of the windows at points a and b as shown in site plan ext. aw 1/1: and (b) the construction of the tin-shed in the open courtyard. the controller directed the tenant to carry out necessary repairs and restore the tenancy premises in its original shape within one month failing which the tenant will become liable to eviction under clause (j) of section 14(1) of the act.3. the tenant .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //