Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajat Lal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD482(Delhi)
This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of theCIT(A) mainly on two grounds, which are as under : "1. The learnedCIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,40,699 on account of commission ignoring the fact that the commission allowed to the assessee is part of the salary and as per provision of Section 15(a), the salary is taxable on due basis. It is also stated that the commission allowed to the assessee was debited to the P&L a/c of the employer company in the previous year 1996-97 relevant to the asst. yr. 1997-98. The AO was, therefore, justified in including the above amount in the taxable salary for the asst. yr. 1997-98; 2. The learnedCIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,77,14,279 on account of capital gains ignoring the facts that the assessee had transferred the shares of M/s Rajendra Lal Shadi Lal Co. (P) Ltd. to M/s SRF Ltd. in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1997-98 as per agree...
Asstt. C.i.T., Spl. Range Vs. Hughes Services (Fe) Pte. Ltd. as
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD77(Delhi)
1. This matter has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) of I.T.Act on account of difference between the learned Members of the Bench who heard the misc. applications. The following question has been referred to me to cover the difference: "Whether in law, the order of the Tribunal Under Section 255(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be said to be suffering from mistake apparent from record on the basis of subsequent judgment of the jurisdictional High Court for the purpose of rectification Under Section 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The facts of the case are that assesses were expatriate technicians who worked for foreign companies for drilling of oil. After every 28 days of working on oil rig, they were entitled to 28 days of "off period" to be spent outside India. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide orders dated 23.3.2001 & 20.3.2001, accepted that salary of "off period" was not liable to be taxed in India. The matter was ultimately carried to the Uttaranchal High...
Legato Systems India (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)828
1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the order dt.15th Dec., 2003, of the CIT(A), New Delhi. Since the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved in both the appeals are identical, these appeals are decided to be disposed by a composite order.2. The first ground of appeal for asst. yr. 2000-01 relates to the validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee-company was registered with the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi and Haryana on 10th Nov., 1994, in the name of ORP Systems (P) Ltd. and later on changed its name to M/s Legato Systems India (P) Ltd. w.e.f. 12th July, 1999. The company was registered under STPI as a new undertaking w.e.f. 6th July, 1995. The assessee-company was engaged in the development and export of computer software. The AO noticed that upto the asst. yr. 1999-2000, the company was claiming the deduction under Section 80HHE. For the ...
Puri Const. Ltd. Vs. Larsen and Toubro
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT113; 2005(79)DRJ281
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This application on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 CPC seeks return of the title deeds, sanctioned/structural plans and calculations as well as the entire record of the sales which belong to the petitioners and are lying deposited in the registry of this Court pursuant to the Order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30th May, 2002, passed in FAO.No.319/01. 2. During the pendency of the award on 30th May, 2002, the learned Single Judge of this passed the following order:- ''FAO 319/2001 Counsel for the appellant, in view of the suggestions made by this Court and upon instructions from the officer of the appellant present in Court, agreed that the Title Deeds and the Sanctioned Plans in respect of the land in question, which are in possession of the appellant shall be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and shall be kept in a sealed cover till the Arbitrator, before whom the proceedings are almost at final stage, passes his Award and ...
Sh. Narender Kr Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT663; 2005(80)DRJ394; 2006(1)SLJ408(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by his non-appointment to the post of Telecom Officer. Respondent No.2 on 29.11.2000 had taken out an advertisement titled ''Recruitment of Graduate Engineer Telecom Officers-2001''. Petitioner, who holds a Bachelor Degree in Instrumentation and Control Engineering, from Delhi University, applied in response to the above advertisement. Petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held in March, 2001. He was called for an interview pursuant to his qualifying the said examination. Respondent No.2 did not appoint the petitioner holding that Bachelor degree in Instrumentation and Control Engineering, possessed by the petitioner, did not meet the eligibility qualification. 3. For facility of reference, the eligibility conditions as given in the advertisement are reproduced as under:- ''A) Educational: The applicant must possess Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor...
Harbans Lal Mehra Deceased Through Lrs. Vs. Rameshwar Nath and anr. De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT67; 2005(79)DRJ533
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. RC-SA 27/2002 is directed against judgment and order dated 2.8.2002 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, (for short 'Tribunal,) in RCA NO. 980/1996 whereby the learned Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller who had dismissed the petition of the petitioner (respondent herein) filed under Section 14(1)(b)(d)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are as follows : ''The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant preferred a petition for eviction impleading Smt. Tara Devi as tenant/respondent and Harbans Lal Mehra (since deceased) as sub/tenant/respondent. It was claimed in the petition that the premises consisting of two rooms, one store inside the room on the ground floor and one room, one tin-shed kitchen on the first floor were let to the husband of Smt. Tara Devi by the predecessor of the appellant. One bathroom was also provi...
Prasar Bharati Vs. Drishti India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR87(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT64; 2005(79)DRJ202
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') filed by Prasar Bharati for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 2.This petition again raises the questions which repeatedly arise during proceedings for the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6)(c) of the Act. The petitioner had entered into an Accreditation Agreement dated 31st May, 1995 with the respondent by which the respondent was required to make payment of advertisement and other related bills jointly and severally with advertisers. Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:- ''5. In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under these presents or in connection therewith except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these presents, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of...
Dr. A.S. Narayanna Rao Vs. Kundan Lal Bali
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT38; 2005(79)DRJ287
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM APPL. 15011/2004 (for exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. 2. RC.REV.80/2004 and CM APPL 15010/2004 : This revision petition is filed under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for setting aside the eviction order dated 15th September, 2004, of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short ''the Controller'') in Eviction Petition No. 148/2004, whereby the learned Controller has passed an eviction order against the petitioner herein. 3. The brief facts of the case as has been noted by the learned Controller are as under : ''Petitioner Sh.Kundan Bali seeks eviction of respondent Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao from premises comprising four rooms, kitchen, bathroom, WC and a store on the ground of property No. 16-!/10, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (more particularly shown and delineated in colour red in site plan) (here-in-after referred as the premises) for the reason that it was let out to the respondent in Se...
Delhi Transport Corporation Indraprastha Estate Vs. the Presiding Offi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT673
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 22nd August 1985 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 85 of 1979 (old) and ID No. 305 of 1984 (new). 2. The appropriate Government, through the Secretary (Labour) of the Delhi Administration referred the following question for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:- ''Whether the pay scales of the Security Staff up to the rank of the Asstt. Security Inspector need be revised, and, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?'' 3. By the impugned Award, it was held that Respondent No.3 (Workmen) are entitled to the pay scales of their counterparts in the Delhi Police. Consequently, an Assistant Security Inspector (ASI) was held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 425-700, a Security Havaldar was held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.260-350 and a Security Guard was held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.225-308. All these categories of employees of the Petitioner were held entitled to their respective pay sca...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Globe Hi Fabs Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR636(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT1
Vijender Jain, J.C.M.No. 13370/20041. Learned counsel for the appellants wishes to withdraw the application for interim injunction. 2. In view of the submissions made, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.F.A.O.(OS) No. 222/20041. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9th August, 2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the objections of the appellant. We are dismissing this appeal in liming as we have heard Mr. J.C. Seth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length and the counsel for the caveator. 2. In view of certain disputes between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration of sole arbitrator, Mr. S. Krishnan, who was a retired manager of the appellant's organization. Mr. Seth has vehemently contended that the award was without jurisdiction. It was contended before us that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that there was a specific bar in the contract against the payment of interest to the contractor. In this regar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »