Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 7 of about 292 results (0.038 seconds)Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. All India Deaf and Dumb Society
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)376; [2006]283ITR113(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are that the assessed filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 23,39,372/- on 10.10.1997. First the case was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, later was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued to the assessed under Section 143(2) of the Act and finally the assessing officer vide his order dated 10.03.2000 assessed the assessed at Rs. 4,64,785/- and directed the interest to be charged under Section 234B and also to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271D and 271E of the Act separately.2. Vide order dated 18.09.2000, the Joint Director of Income Tax (E) imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,07,000/- under Section 271D of the Act and directed that a demand notice be issued in terms thereof in relation to the assessment year 1997-98 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,60,761.75/- under Section 271E of the Act for the same year.3. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganga Vishnu Raheja Vs. Shri Swami Satyanand Dharmarth Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT609; 2005(30)PTC577(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This judgment and order would dispose of 11 appeals, which are filed by the appellant and which are directed against the order passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi in case numbers 1 - 11 of 1995.2. The aforesaid cases were registered on the basis of 11 petitions filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act praying for an order to expunge 11 copyright registrations made in favor of the respondent for 11 books written by late His Highness Swami Satanand Ji Maharaj. The aforesaid 11 petitions were filed as 11 copyright registrations were made pertaining to 11 separate books, which were written by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj.3. Since the subject matter of all the petitions was similar and the issues raised in all the 11 petitions were also similar in nature, the Copyright Board disposed of all these 11 petitions by a common order.4. Being aggrieved by the said common order passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi, 11 appeals were filed in this court, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chand, S/O Shri Mangat Ram, Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT90; 2005(82)DRJ541
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner Ganesh Chand along with Karam Chand and Smt. Vidya Wanti submitted a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Land Acquisition Collector, Tis Hazari, Delhi, on 10th June, 2002, praying that their case be referred to the Court of the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Collector. In this application it was further stated that they had filed a representation on 24th August, 2001 as they were illiterate persons and ignorant of law. Thus, justice should be done to them by granting the benefit prayed for.2. However, the following paragraphs of the said representations are relevant for the purposes of determining the controversy:-'At the time of announcement of Award, we also attended your good office and were asked to sign the Award and We as a human gesture, being the persons not fully conversant with the provisions of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Malkiat Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT668; II(2005)DMC257
Manju Goel, J. 1. The petition seeks quashment of proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell North East District in case No.V-2 arising out of the complaint of the respondent No.2 Smt. Virender Kaur. The proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell culminated into an FIR and thereafter into a charge-sheet. Accordingly, the court now has to consider whether the FIR and the charge sheet can be quashed.2. The grounds for making the prayer are precisely two namely:-(1) No part of the alleged offence took place in Delhi and thereforee neither the Delhi police nor the Delhi courts can have jurisdiction in the matter; (2) For the same offence an FIR was registered earlier which was compromised between the parties and thereforee the new complaint/FIR/charge sheet cannot be maintainable.3. I take the second objection first as it relates entirely to fact. The complaint as is available in the FIR bearing No.249/2002 dated 25.4.2002 Police Station Rohini can be restated in brief as under:-...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Malhotra and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT181; II(2005)DMC242; 2005(83)DRJ528
ORDER The impugned order indicates that the learned Public Prosecutor stated before the High Court that the charges under Section 304-B against accused Neena had been framed under certain erroneous facts. Counsel for the informant, who is the petitioner in this Court, states that this is an incorrect recording of the High Court. In the circumstances, we call upon the learned Public Prosecutor, who was appearing before the High Court, to file an affidavit as to the correct state of affairs, and whether in fact such assertions had been made before the High Court or not. The affidavit in question be filed within four weeks from today. Put up after six weeks.'6. This order required the Public Prosecutor appearing before this Court to file an affidavit about the proceedings in this Court when the last order was passed. Mr. P.K. Dey, Advocate who was representing the State in the High Court proceedings filed an affidavit before the Court, copy of which has been placed in this Court's present...
Tag this Judgment!Kohinoor Creations and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR324(Delhi); IV(2005)BC156; [2006]132CompCas417(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT241; 2005(82)DRJ631
B.A. Khan, J.1. Which of the two acts would prevail. Would the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 override those of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) is the interesting question raised in this petition.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the principal borrower and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are its guarantors. Petitioner No. 1 executed an export credit agreement with respondent Bank to which other petitioners were not parties. The agreement contained the following arbitration clause:-'28. In the event of any dispute or defense whatsoever in any manner relating to this agreement including any dispute or dues as regards the consideration or validity of this document or any part thereof or as to any Act done or committed to be done hereunder or otherwise whosoever the same shall be decided by the sole and summary arbitration by the Chairman of the Bank for the time being or in the event of their being no chairman by the Chief Executive Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kant Sharma Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT330
Manju Goel, J.1. The present petition assails the order dated 17th January, 2001 whereby the respondent No. 2 was discharged in FIR No. 855/1998 dated 27th October, 1998. The petitioner claims to be the co-owner with the respondent in respect of property bearing No. 60, North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh. In the FIR, it is stated that the property was partitioned by an award of an Arbitrator which became Rule of Court on 5th August, 1988 and parties obtained respective possessions, that the petitioner being an NRI used to come back to the country off and on, that when he came to India in 1996, his entry was resisted by the respondent but subsequently, the matter was again settled whereon the petitioner again went back to Canada but that when he came to India in October, 1998, he was denied entry to his portion of the property and he found that the locks on his portion had been broken and his articles missing. A case under Sections 448/380 IPC was registered. The charge sheet was then file...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. All India Deaf and Dumb Society
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2006)198CTR(Del)376
Swatanter Kumar, J.The facts giving rise to this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are that the assessed filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 23,39,372 on 10-10-1997. First the case was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, later was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued to the assessed under section 143(2) of the Act and finally the assessing officer vide his order dated 10-3-2000 assessed the assessed at Rs. 4,64,785 and directed the interest to be charged under section 234B and also to initiate penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E of the Act separately.2. Vide order dated 18-9-2000, the Joint Director of Income Tax (Exemption) imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,07,000 under section 271D of the Act, and directed that a demand notice be issued in terms thereof in relation to the assessment year 1997-98 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,60,761.75 under section 271E of the Act for the same year.3. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Neset Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]282ITR601(Delhi)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961; it is directed against order dt. 23rd Jan., 2004, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereafter called 'Tribunal').2. The question of law formulated in this appeal is as follows:Whether, having due regard to the facts of the case, the expenditure on payment of one time non-refundable fee for dealership of OTC had resulted in a direct and substantial personal benefit to the assessed in his existing business of trading in shares/securities was allowable as revenue expenditure ?3. The assessed incurred expenses of Rs. 4,27,500 on account of OTC membership and annual fee and claimed it to be revenue expenditure. The break-up of these expenses are as follows:(i) Rs. 50,000 one time non-refundable fee;(ii) Rs. 2,50,000 one time non-refundable admission fee for dealership;(iii) Rs. 5,000 annual fee from September, 1993 to August, 1994;(iv) Rs. 1,00,000 one time non-refundable fee for permitt...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Zarda Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT348TriDel
1. In these Appeals, the impugned order regarding confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and confirmation of duty and penalty except on Appellant No. 2, has been contested by the learned Advocate. Learned Counsel has only prayed for the reduction in the redemption fine and penalties on the ground that there was no willful or intentional evasion of the duty and these goods were a day earlier production, when the officers visited the factory. After going through the record, in my view, the prayer of the learned Counsel, deserves to be accepted. Redemption fine on the confiscation of the goods and the penalties imposed on the appellant No. 1, as detailed in the Order-in-Original, are reduced to 50%. However the imposition of penalty on Appellant No. 2 under Rule 209A in my view is not at all tenable as the conditions laid down in the said Rule do not stand satisfied. Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta, had nothing to do with the confiscated goods or their disposal. He is only brother ...
Tag this Judgment!