Delhi Court August 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.
Cit Vs. Mrs. Mala Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN315(Delhi)
ORDERAt the instance of the revenue, this reference is made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for determining the following question:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessed from the flat in the multistoreyed building is to be assessed under the head income from other source' or 'Income from house property'?2. In view of the Apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , the answer is required to be given against the revenue and in favor of the assessed and the income is to be treated as income from house property. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs....
Cit Vs. Girnar Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN81(Delhi)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income Tax Officer to accept the loss of Rs. 25,090 as claimed by the assessed?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under sections 80K and 80M in view of the provision of section 80A of the Income Tax Act?'2. The learned counsel for the revenue rightly submitted that the questions are not properly framed and it should be re-framed. Accordingly, after going through the papers, we reframe the question as under :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under sections 80K and 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be allowed before set-off of loss of earlier year.'3. In view of the decision of the Apex Court this ...
Employees State Insurance Corp. Vs. Navchetan Press Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC182
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16th February, 1986 of the Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi in Suit No. 38/1986 whereby the learned Judge has held in the facts and circumstances of this case that the Directors are not workmen of the Company.2. It is contended by Counsel for the appellant that as laid down by the Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Apex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. : (1998)ILLJ274SC , a Director who gets paid over and above the remuneration of a Director for performing any additional task would become an employee of the Company and, thereforee, would fall within the purview of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1940.3. I have heard Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the judgment under challenge. As per the record of this case, there is nothing on record to show that any of the Directors were receiving any additional amount over and above the remuneration as Directors being on the Board of the Company...
Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC770
1. M/s. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. have filed this Appeal against the enhancement of the assessment value of the goods imported by them and against demand of duty and penalty.2. Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a subsidiary of M/s. Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Company, USA imported nine numbers of used tyre curing press from M/s. Goodyear Philippines Inc., which is also a subsidiary of M/s. Goodyear, USA; that they had declared the assessable value as Rs. 2,66,62,491; that the goods were examined on first check basis by the Customs Authority who found certain discrepancies with regard to the year of manufacture and they also wanted to enhance the value of the extent of 30 to 35% approximately; that they waived the issue of show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing before the Commissioner on 11.7.2003; that after the personal hearing the Commissioner has constituted a panel consisting of the officers of Machinery Expert, Group Appr...
L.Nk. Sumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT323
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the alleged ground of unauthorised absence from service, which allegedly amounts to an act of misconduct, neglect and disobedience of the orders within the ambit of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The memorandum of charges containing the aforesaid allegations was sent to the petitioner by the respondents which was duly received. This memorandum of charges was accompanied by the statement of articles of charges, imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses. It was also directed that the petitioner should submit reply to the aforesaid memorandum of charges framed against the petitioner. The respondents contend that the petitioner did not respond to the aforesaid letter and, thereforee, the respondent proceeded to hold the inquiry even without the reply of the petitioner. From the records of the respondent it is indicated that on 1.7.1998, a letter was sent by the respondents to the ...
Munna Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT232
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. CM No.5022/2004 (for restoration of W.P.(C) 5046/20022. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. CWP 5046/2002 was dismissed for non-prosecution as the counsel for the petitioner was not present on 21st April, 2004. Now, an application is filed praying for restoration of the writ petition by recalling the order dated 21st April, 2004. For the reasons stated in the application, the application stands allowed. The order dated 21st April, 2004 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. Application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.4. Interim order stands revived.5. W.P.(C) Nos. 5046/2002, 1190/2002,4424/2002 & 4652/2002:All these writ petitions involve similar question of fact and law and, thereforee, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.6. These writ petitions are filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned office order dated 27th December, 2001 pa...
Sqn. Ldr. K.V. Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT335; 2004(77)DRJ627
Mukundakam Sharma, J 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the posting order dated 29.6.2004 whereby the petitioner has been posted to Nalliya, Gujarat with effect from 16.8.2004 under Air Headquarters Signal dated June 29, 2004. The petitioner was posted to Air Force Station Yelhanka, Bangalore by an order dated 26.10.1998 and thereafter the petitioner was posted to Air Headquarter by an order dated 21.5.2001. Since then the petitioner has been staying in Delhi and working in the Air Headquarter. 2. Now, when the aforesaid posting order has been issued posting the petitioner to Nalliya, Gujarat, and the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid order of transfer and posting of the petitioner. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length as also the counsel for the respondents. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid order of transfer has been passed as the petitioner h...
D.D.A. Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR481(Delhi); 126(2006)DLT466
Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed on 21.3.2001. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement the matter was referred to the arbitration by appellant and a retired Director General, CPWD was appointed as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave its award dated 27.11.1990. Mr. Bhuchar, learned counsel for the appellant has limited his argument on the grant of Rs.3 lakh 50 thousand under the claim No.7 by the Arbitrator said finding of the Arbitrator has been approved in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Arbitrator has not given any reason for coming to the conclusion that under claim No.7 the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakh 50 thousand. In nutshell the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the arbitration clause it was specifically provided that the Ar...
Kamal NaraIn Kapoor and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT942
ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. According to the complainant he had advanced a loan of Rs. 15 lacs to a sole proprietary firm M/s. Uma Shankar Kamal Narain of the petitioner No. 1 by way of an account payee cheque and another. sum of Rs. 5,50,000 /- in cash. The petitioner No. 1 issued some post-dated cheques payable during the period from January, 2000 to November, 2000. These cheques continued to be with the complainant. He is not shown to have ever presented these cheques on due dates for encashment thereof. Further allegation is that it was on 16th February, 2004 that he handed back those post-dated cheques to the petitioners on their promise that the same would be replaced by fresh ones and that the balance amount would be paid by way of a pay order in a day. Acting on such representation, the complainant is alleged to have had handed over those post-dated cheques to the petitioners. His allegation is that by making a false promise to the said effect the petitioners induced him to hand...
Ssg Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajaj and Co. Regd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(31)PTC665(Del)
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.6.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 290/2003 whereby the learned Judge rejected the application of the appellant for interim injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts etc.2. Parties hereto agree that the order under challenge be set aside on terms of settlement and FAO 220/2004 be disposed of accordingly.3. It is agreed between parties that the respondent shall use the label marked-A, filed in the Court but will add the picture of another child to make it appear as three children. The inner pouch and the outer pouch shall be the same. The existing pouches lying in the premises of the respondent will be destroyed in the premises of the respondent in the presence of the appellant on 6th August, 2004. The respondents shall not use the impugned packing from today. The equipment meant for printing the impugned pouches shall be destroyed in the premises of...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »