Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 16 of about 207 results (0.034 seconds)Ashish Paul S/O Guru Vachan Paul Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT353; 2005(83)DRJ382
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are to the effect that a Notification dated 13th December, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and a declaration dated 7th December, 2001 issued under Section 6 of the Act by the Respondents be struck down and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the Petitioner's land in the revenue estate of village Bhartal, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi be declared void and of no legal effect. The Petitioner has also prayed for quasing of a Notification dated 21st March, 2002 issued under Section 17(1) of the Act in respect, inter alia, of the land of the Petitioner.2. The above Notifications were also challenged by another land owner in village Bhartal and the acquisition proceedings were upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 4th September, 2003 which is reported as Raheja Hospital and Psychiatric Research Institute v. Land Acquisition Collector and others : 106(...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanand S/O Late Shri Chhellu Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ442
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Khasra No. 218, Village Masoodpur, New Delhi is in two parts, that is, Khasra No. 218/1 and Khasra No. 218/2. The Petitioners claim to be owners and occupants of land, which they say forms a part of Khasra No. 218/1.2. The total land of Khasra No. 218 consists of 8 bighas and 15 biswas. A part of this (that is, Khasra No. 218/2) was acquired by an Award No. 2040 dated 2nd December, 1967. The acquired land was also placed at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA 'Respondent No. 2). Khasra No. 218/1 was not acquired by the Respondents.3. According to the Petitioners, the land in dispute forms a part of Khasra No. 218/1 which was not acquired. But according to the Respondents the land in dispute forms a part of Khasra No. 218/2 and was in fact acquired and possession physically handed over to the DDA. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners have encroached upon this land on the pretext that it falls in Khasra No. 218/1.4. Apparently, when the DDA...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Sudhir Choudhrie
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)528; 122(2005)DLT11; [2005]278ITR490(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Notice to show cause why the appeals be not admitted returnable on 10th September, 2002, was issued by a Division Bench of this Court in all the above appeals vide order dated 20th May, 2002. In response to it the respondent-assessed appeared and took an objection in its submission that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had passed an order in favor of the assessed for the assessment year 1988-89 which has not been challenged by the Department and as such all subsequent appeals would have to be dismissed or adversely affected. The pendency of this matter became a matter of concern for the Court as it was stated at the Bar in different cases including the above appeals, that orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are not served upon the Department for years together, while on the other hand the contention of the Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Appellate tribunal was that the orders are duly communicated or served upon the authorities but sometimes ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khosla Indair Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)191; 121(2005)DLT387
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Vide its order dated 25th August, 2003, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, New Delhi, holding that the income of the assessed had to be treated as income under the head 'business' and not 'other sources'. It also held that there was no cessation of business, and at best it would only be a lull or a temporary cessation, and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Indraprastha Steel Industries Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi 1973 (Vol.88) Income Tax Reports 138, it was argued that the set of carry forward losses of earlier years was not available to the assessed in the present case as there was cessation of business and also that mere realisation of some income on account of interest, could not be treated as income from business. On this premise, the challenge is raised to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarla Devi JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Under Secretary ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi12; 121(2005)DLT426; 2005(83)DRJ377
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Review Application No. 242/2004 is an application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for review of the order dated 4th February, 2004 while C.M. No. 7591/2004 is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condensation of delay in filing the review application (R.A. No. 242/2004). C.M. No. 600/2004 is still another application filed under Section 151 of the CPC for staying of the operation of the judgment and directing the Respondents to maintain status quo. The Petitioner/applicants had filed a writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that the process of acquisition was vitiated as it was ex facie in violation of the statutory mandate of Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the Collector had not offered or tendered 80% of the award before ta...
Tag this Judgment!Raheja Hospital and Psychiatric Research Institute Through Its Directo ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT193; 2005(85)DRJ501
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is in the third round of litigation in respect of its property admeasuring 22 bigha and 1 biswa in village Bhartal, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi.2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued on 13th December, 2000 by the Respondents proposing to acquire land for a public purpose, namely construction of Dwarka PhaseG?'II under the planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, on considering the objections of parties a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th December, 2001 acquiring 2904 bigha and 16 biswa of land. In view of the urgency in acquisition, the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were invoked on 15th March, 2002 and possession of almost the entire acquired area was taken over on or about 14th August, 2002. The land of the Petitioner is roughly 0.76% of the entire acquired area.3. Sometime in April 2002 the Petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP 2453/2002 challenging the validity of N...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Durant Refrigeration (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)58
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 19th December, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench D, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No.1985/Del/99 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The Appellant says that the Respondent had claimed purchase of 505 oxygen gas cylinders at Rs.2,800/- each from M/s Puja Gases Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs.14,14,000/-. These gas cylinders were said to have been leased out to M/s Hotz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., a sister concern of the Respondent and in its return the Respondent claimed 100% depreciation on these gas cylinders.3. The assessing officer came to the conclusion that M/s Puja Gases Ltd. was not in existence since the address furnished by the Respondent was a fake address. The statement of one Mr. A.S. Chowdhry, the proprietor of M/s Puja Gases Ltd. was recorded by the assessing officer which, according to him, also established that the entire transaction was a bogus one. The assessing ...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer (Enforcement ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT272; 2005(83)DRJ285; [2005]142STC257(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The facts of this case are quite remarkable if not extraordinary.2. The Petitioner is carrying on business primarily of buying and re-selling bullion (despite its name) besides dealing in other items. During the relevant assessment year 2001-02, the Petitioner says that its total turnover in Delhi was about Rs.244 crores which included bullion sold in Delhi amounting to about Rs. 238 crores. The Petitioner says that it paid the appropriate sales tax on this amount.3. On or about 12th January 2001 the State of Rajasthan introduced a Compounded Levy Scheme for Bullion Traders (for short the Scheme). In terms of the Scheme, bullion traders could opt for compounding their tax liability in respect of their sales of bullion within the State on payment of a composition amount. In the case of the Petitioner, falling in the residual category, the composition amount payable for 2000-2001 was 125% of the tax paid in the financial year 1999-2000 subject to a minimum of Rs.100...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Preshad Gupta Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-22 and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)292; 122(2005)DLT178; 2005(83)DRJ372; [2006]283ITR585(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned notice dated 20.05.2004 in relation to the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03 issued by the Income-Tax authorities under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and also prays for awarding of compensation and costs for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the petitioner as a result of issuance of notice and proceedings taken up by the authorities.2. At the very outset, we may notice that petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5562/2005 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court while passing the following direction:-'We are not impressed with the contention. The order of assessment was passed by the AO after duly considering the objections filed by the assessed in response to the notice under Section 147 of the Act. All the objections raised in this writ petition can conveniently be raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax Ap...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamala Khaitan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC16; 2006ACJ753; 123(2005)DLT345; 2005(84)DRJ131
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Present appeal is directed against an order dated 26th March, 2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'othe Act'-) made by appellant insurance company.2. The application was made seeking permission to widen scope of its defencess on the ground that the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle have colluded with the claimant as they failed to contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte. Though the Tribunal noticed that to attract application of Section 170 of the Act either of the two conditions, namely, (a) that there is collusion between the claimant and the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle; or (b) owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle failed to contest the proceedings, has to be satisfied it proceeded to find that clause (b) of Section 170 would be inviolableonly where failure of owner/driver to contest the claim is in furtherance of collusion be...
Tag this Judgment!