Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 11 of about 139 results (0.021 seconds)P.G. Electronics Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)896
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 13th March, 2002 under Section 263 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1998-99. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee though the notice has been served on the assessee as per the AD card placed on record. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the record and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.2. The assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electronic and electric goods. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3), the AO allowed deduction in respect of the insurance premium of Rs. 87,840 paid in respect of Shn Anurag Gupta, one of the partners, under the "Keyman Insurance Scheme".The CIT considered the allowance of the premium as business expenditure to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, took proceedings for revising the assessment under Section 263 and invited t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)1078
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 20th Feb., 2001 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1997-98. The assessee has raised three main issues, which we shall deal in seriatim.2. The first issue is with regard to the claim of exemption under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with regard to the long-term capital gain on sale of 500 equity shares of M/s Castrol India Ltd. The gain so declared represented the entire sale price of the shares. The assessee claimed to have reinvested the entire sum in the construction of a residential house and, therefore, in terms of Section 54F considered the long-term capital gain as exempt, thereby computing 'nil' income under the head 'Capital gain'.The AO noted that the assessee had not deducted any cost of acquisition of such shares against the sale. The AO further notes in the assessment order that the assessee vide letter dt. 20th Nov., 1999 admitted that there was no evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Amardeep Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT113; II(2005)DMC715
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is direct against the order dated 23rd August, 2005, in C.A. 122/03 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of judgment and order dated 17th August, 2002 and 9th September, 2002, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the Petitioner under Section 498-A/406 IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for six months with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 406 IPC.2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not in a position to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. He submits that the Petitioner is the only earning member of the family and that his continuous incarceration will cause grave constraints to the livelihood of the family. He submits that during the pendency of this revision petition the fat...
Tag this Judgment!Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbh Vs. G.D. Rathore and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT725; 2006(32)PTC103(Del)
Anil Kumar J. 1. These appeals involve common disputes, are disposed of by this common order are against the orders of the Learned Single Judge dismissing appellants interim injunction applications in different suits against the respondents seeking restrain against them from infringing or pirating the copyright of the appellant in the drawing and moulds for Dr. Best toothbrush and/or the moulds for Flex N Direct toothbrush and restrain against the respondents from selling toothbrush which are identical in appearance to CEELO FLEXY or any other tooth brush confusingly similar in appearance to the appellant's Dr. Best, Aquafresh Flex and/or Aquafresh Flex `N' Direct.2. Appellants/Plaintiffs had filed four suits for permanent injunction of infringement of copyright, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts along with interim injunction applications being IA.11441/98 and 53/99 in suit No. 2771/1998 titled SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and Ors. v. Mr. G.D. Rathor and...
Tag this Judgment!Ceebros Hotels Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT458
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner's plans to construct a Hotel on its private land situated opposite the International Airport in St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram Cantonment, Chennai has received a set-back. Vide orders dated 15.6.1984, the GOC-in-C, Southern Command had imposed Floor Space Index (FSI) restrictions which may render the Hotel project non-viable. The contention of the Petitioner is that the power to determine the FSI is reposed in the Cantonment Board and not the GOC-in-C, Southern Command, and further that the FSI fixed by the said Officer is insufficient for the proposed five-star hotel and in variance with what has been allowed to other similarly placed Companies. The next contention of the Petitioner is that the FSI has already been related for two other companies but declined for the Petitioner. The Petitioner had initiated appropriate legal proceedings in the Madras High Court in the course of which directions were issued to the Central Government to dispose of Pe...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Jagdhari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT636; 2005(85)DRJ160
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ to the respondents to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by him. The respondents have denied their liability.2. The petitioner, a former member of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) superannuated from the service of the first respondent on 31.10.1995. At the time of his retirement, the Government of India had introduced, w.e.f. 1.4.1984 the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) for medical treatment of its employees and former employees who opted under the scheme. In terms of Rule 9 of that scheme pensioners could opt for making for one time payment towards CGHS contribution equal to 10 times the annual contribution which entitled them to issuance of a permanent CGHS card.3. The petitioner had settled down at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh. It is averred that no CGHS facility was available at that time nor is available even today, in that place. It is averred that the petitioner had applied for a CGHS card mentionin...
Tag this Judgment!Nb. Sub. Raj Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT470
Anil Kumar, J.1. This petition shall determine whether the discharge of the petitioner, a JCO, without the recommendation of Invalidating Board was valid and in consonance with the relevant Army Rules, 1954 and Army orders.2. The brief facts to appreciate the controversy are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 9th March, 1980 and was posted to 12 JAT Regiment initially and from 11th February, 1985 to 20 JAT Regiment. On 31st July, 2000, while serving the 20 JAT at around 0400 hours, he felt pain all over his chest, both the shoulders and arms and was admitted to Military Hospital and after treatment discharged on 7th November, 2000 and placed in low medical category S1H1P2E1 with effect from 6th November 2000 for six months. On account of disability, Ischaemic heart disease (ANTERO SEPTEL MI) , he continued in a low medical category with effect from 6th May, 2001 and thereafter on review he was placed in the permanent low medical category for two years with effect from 24th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. S. Shandil W/O Mr. R.K. Shandil Vs. D.A.V. College Managing Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT757
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 28th January, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 210/2003.2. The Appellant was working as a Principal in DAV Secondary School, Shimla. She was charged with certain irregularities and a departmental enquiry was held against her.3. Of 15 charges leveled against the Appellant, she was found guilty of 7 charges, which were considered serious in nature. The Appellant was heard on the question of punishment and thereafter dismissed from service by an order dated 7th February, 2002. She filed a departmental appeal against her dismissal but since it was not being decided, she filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court in February, 2003 challenging the enquiry report and her dismissal from service.4. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the departmental appeal filed by the Appellant was also rejected.5. Due to the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred from ...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Dies Vs. Symphony Comforts Systems Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(2006)BC178; (2006)142PLR15
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This is an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') read with Section 151, CPC seeking stay of the proceedings in suit bearing No. CO 8/1997.2. Petitioner Modern Dies has filed this petition for cancellation of design registration No. 172063 dated 26,2.1997 under the provisions of Section 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911. It is pleaded that the petitioner's sister concern Modern Fans having same partners is dealing in the manufacture and sale of bodies of air coolers, grills for air conditioners, television cabinets and water thermos. Petitioner's firm is engaged in the manufacture of dies and tools for its various clients as well as for its sister firm Modern Fans. It is alleged that respondent has got a design for air cooler registered vide registration No. 172063 dated 26.2.1997 and also filed a Suit No. 587/97 for infringement against the petitioner. According to the petitioner the said regist...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Singh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT466
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution have questioned an agreement entered into between the first respondent (hereafter called as the `MCD') and the respondent No. 2, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO, hereafter called by its name as `Manushi'). That agreement introduces a pilot scheme (hereafter 'the project') aimed at rehabilitating street vendors. The project is located at Sewa Nagar, New Delhi.2. The petitioners reside in Sewa Nagar, a Government colony comprising nearly 2,500 quarters; the colony is inhibited by Government employees. The land owning agency of the colony is the Land & Development Office, the 5th respondent (hereafter called as `the L & DO'). The petitioners object to the project on the ground that it is contrary to decisions of the Supreme Court as also express provisions of law. It is averred that the MCD is seeking shelter and order of the Supreme Court dated 10.4.2003 made while disposing o...
Tag this Judgment!