Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Time Incorporated Vs. Lokesh Srivastava and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]131CompCas198(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT599; 2005(30)PTC3(Del)

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This suit for permanent injunction, damages and delivery up etc. has been instituted by the plaintiff Company alleging that the plaintiff Company is organized and existing under the laws of State of Delaware, USA and is having its registered office at New York. It is a subsidiary of Time Warner Incorporation, which is a leading Magazine publisher in world. Its publications include the News Magazine 'TIME' as well as 'TIME ASIA'. These magazines have acquired worldwide trade reputation and goodwill and are known for fair reporting, good writing and authoritative and unbiased analysis of events and issues. The plaintiff Company is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'TIME' in about 150 countries and its front page design with distinctive red border is recognized all over world. In para 7 of the plaint, details of its annual average paid circulation have been given. To cater to the specific needs and requirements of a world fragmented into continents and regions,...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishwant Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)83

ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order dt. 21st Nov., 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi.Vide the impugned order the Tribunal had disposed of an appeal by the Department and the cross-appeal by the assessed against the order of the CIT(A)-n, New Delhi, dt. 29th Nov., 1996. We feel it will be appropriate to refer to the following content of the order impugned before us rather then mention the facts of the case in detail.'4. It has been observed by the AO that opportunity was given to the assessed vide letter dt. 24th Jan., 1991- fixing the case for 4th Feb., 1991. In response to notice the assessed has filed a letter stating that return was filed vide receipt No. 36383 and a copy of the same was enclosed. Again in his reply dt. 19th Feb., 1991 he has enclosed a duplicate return stating to have been filed in Distt. VIII(4) vide receipt No. 36383. On scrutiny of the receipt it was not clear when the return was f...

State Bank of India Vs. Amar Kumar Prem

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On the charge of deficiency in services the appellant-Bank, vide impugned order dated 4.3.2000, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages for harassment and torture caused to the respondent besides a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation, inasmuch as, that a sum of Rs. 800/- was withdrawn from the account of the respondent in the month of June 1998, allegedly without the authority of the respondent or without bearing the signatures of the respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant bank preferred this appeal. Put briefly the facts are, that the respondent was holding a Savings Bank account with the Laxmi Nagar Branch of the appellant Bank and on 1.7.1998 he came to know that his pass book was missing from his room and applied for a duplicate pass book. It was on receipt of the said duplicate pass book that he came to know that Rs. 800/- had been withdrawn in the month of June 1998 from his account. Since he did not make this withdrawal...

Thai Airways International Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)2SOT389(Delhi)

These 28 appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue in relation to orders under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) in relation to financial years 1986-87 to 1991-92 and 1993-94. The assessee is in appeal before us mainly on the ground that it was not liable to deduct tax at source in respect of the payments in question and, therefore, the assessee has wrongly been visited by the consequences envisaged under sections 201(1) and 201(IA). Revenue is in appeal against the findings of the learned CIT(A) insofar as the learned CIT(A) has held in relation to certain payments that the assessee should not be treated as an assessee in default and visited by the consequences of the provisions of sections 201(1) and 201(1A).Before proceeding to decide these appeals on merits, we would first deal with the plea of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the assessee before us. A cording to the assessee for the financial years 1986-87 to 1991-92 the orders under sections 20...