In a case of bounced cheque, the Delhi high court has ruled that the magistrate in the place where the cheque was drawn and where the drawee bank is situated has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The power under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not with the magistrate where the cheque was presented or from where the notice was issued to the offending party. Shree Raj issued some 45 cheques drawn on State Bank of India in Mumbai to Destination of the World in New Delhi. When the payee company presented them to ICICI Bank in Delhi, they were dishonoured by bank for want of funds.
Leela Bhagwansing Advani Vs Union of India (Mumbai High Court)- Argument of the petitioners is that under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was payable to the petitioners immediately after the Award dated 30th May 1995.
PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Section 22 of the Act makes “income from house property” as chargeable to income tax. After excluding such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income tax.
CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- During the Assessment Year 2000-01, in which the issue arises, the assessee had returned Rs. 144 Crores receivable from Non-Performing Assets in accordance with the guidelines by reversing its income accounted for and offered for tax in earlier years.
Insilco Limited Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Honourable Tribunal has rightly given the aforesaid directions, which are nothing but pointing out what the AO was required to do under the law.
It was held that any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products constitutes input service. The catering service, rent-a-cab and transportation services and the tax paid on the said services are stated as input services.
CIT Vs Ms Mayawati (Delhi High Court)- All the donors appeared before the Department, submitted material including affidavits on oath, confirms the gifts made, established their old relations with the assessee and proved their capacity to make the gifts. We have noted that in earlier years also they had made gifts to the assessee and her family members, which were accepted by the Revenue.
All Grow Finance And Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Only condition laid down in second part of sub-section 2 of Section 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section 2.
1. I have been privileged to read the judgement prepared by brother Justice Dr. Satish Chandra. I agree with the final verdict in the present appeal but respectfully, I express my separate opinion. We have heard Shri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellants.
The Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)- All the assets of the business were not rented out by the appellant company. It was doing the main business of manufactures, imports, purchases and dealing in scientific apparatus, chemicals, chemical products, articles of glass, metal, wood, paper etc., more or less connected with science, as given clause 3 (a) of the memorandum of association.
