Delhi Court April 2006 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.
Maxpak Investment Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)881
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and it relates to the asst. yr. 1998-99. It arises this way.2. The assessee is an investment company. It filed a return declaring net loss of Rs. 48,47,747 under the head "Incorae from business" and claimed the same to be carried forward to the subsequent years under Section 72 of the Act. The loss was computed as under:Profit as per P&L a/c for the year ended 31.03.1998 (82,04,038)Add : Interest paid on loans taken/funds utilized for purchaseof capital assets (not claimed as expenditure) 37,00,464 (45,03,574)Less : Dividend income [Exempt under Section 10(33) SeeAnnexure for details] 3,44,173 Net assessable income (48,47,747) A note was made (Note No. 5) to the computation to the effect that the 'break-up of investments in capital assets and trading assets is enclosed (Annex. 2)'. The Annex. 1 showed dividend income of Rs. 3,44,173 from shares in Max India Ltd. whi...
Prem Prakash Bhutani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)440
1. The assessee in this appeal is an individual deriving income from business capital gains and other sources. In the return he claimed exemption under Section 54 in respect of capital gains on the footing that he had acquired a residential house out of the sale proceeds of certain land and building owned by him in N-136, Panchshila Park, New Delhi. The AO noticed that the assessee had entered into an arrangement with a builder in respect of the property under which he was to receive five flats for himself and some cash consideration for giving the builder the right to develop the property, and that out of the five flats received the assessee had disposed of two flats and retained three flats for himself. According to the AO the benefit of Section 54 can be given only in respect of one residential house acquired by the assessee and not "for a spate of residential houses which he constructs out of the consideration received", and accordingly granted deduction only in respect of one res...
Surjit Singh and anr. Vs. Kumar Pahilaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT572; 2006(88)DRJ693
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this civil revision petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned ADJ dated 8th October 2004 in RCA No. 21 entitled as Kumar Pahilaj and Ors. v. Surjit Singh and Anr. by virtue of which order, the petitioners were held entitled to be paid damages/mesne profit from 30th April, 2004.3. The brief facts of this case are as follows:-a) The petitioner No. 1 on 1st November, 1977 let out a house bearing No. A-46, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property') comprising of a ground floor, first floor, barsati, garage, servant quarters, etc. to Sh. H. N. Pahilaj(since deceased), the father of the respondents at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month excluding electricity, water and other charges. There was no written agreement between the parties.b) On 12th May, 1989 the petitioner No. 1 duly served a notice upon Sh. H.N....
Dr. Anand Ramamurthy and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT777; 2006(88)DRJ686
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The last date for filing applications for appearing in the notified Examinations is 24th April 2006. The matter was heard in detail on 5.4.2006, 19.4.2006 as well as today.2. The Petitioners are Doctors who have already qualified as Masters of Surgery (MS). They had enrolled with the National Board of Examinations for the Diplomat of National Board (DNB) in June, 2003. The Training shall be completed in June, 2006 as per the three year schedule. At the time when they had enrolled in the Training as per the Bulletin of Information And Application Form, it had been stated in the General Information that - Examinations are held twice a year: (a) the written examination for primary will be held on Sunday following Second Saturday of June and December and Final on Second Saturday and Sunday at the specified centres?. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent relies on Clause 2 of Points to Remembrance in that very Bulletin which states that instructions in the Booklet are l...
Abn Amro Bank N.V. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)635; 131(2006)DLT248; [2006]285ITR52(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Everything that constitutes 'cause of action' for the petitioner to seek redress, has occurred in Kolkata. For instance, the assessment proceedings resulting in the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were completed in Kolkata. Appeals arising out of such assessments are pending before the income-tax authorities/Tribunal at Kolkata. Deductions on account of interest, of which the petitioner seeks a refund, were being made in Kolkata. Even applications for waiver of interest levied were filed initially before the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Income Tax at Kolkata. 2. The question in the above backdrop is whether the present writ petition ought to be entertained in Delhi, just because one of the reliefs which the petitioner claims is, in the nature of a mandamus against two of the respondents who are stationed here. The respondents argue that the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition in Delhi, not only because...
Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. the State (Through Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT620; 2006(88)DRJ788
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition has been occasioned because of the death of one of the co-accused (Mr P.K. Samal) who was a public servant. The charge-sheet in this matter was filed on 16.05.2000 against the said Mr P.K. Samal, the present petitioner (J.K. Singh) and others under Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B/420/407/468/471 IPC. On 12.11.2001, cognizance was taken. The order on charge was passed on 15.03.2003 and formal charges were framed on 25.03.2003 under the aforesaid sections against all the accused.2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 20.06.2003, Mr P.K. Samal, who was the only public servant amongst the array of accused persons, had died and as a result of which it became necessary that the charges framed against the remaining accused be modified as a consequence of the death of the said public servant. His contention was that after the death of Mr Samal, the char...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Land Acqusition Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT1
T.S. Thakur, J.CM Nos.1628-1633/20051. Heard. The prayer for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondents No.6, 13 & 18 is not seriously opposed by the proposed legal heirs of the said respondents. Even otherwise, we see no reason to decline the prayer for substitution or condensation of delay in the making of the applications, which are supported by affidavits. 2. We, accordingly, allow CM Nos.1628/05, 1630/05 & 1632/05 and condone the delay in the making of the applications for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondents No.6, 13 & 18. We also allow CM Nos.1629/05, 1631/05 & 1633/05 and bring on record the proposed legal heirs in place of deceased respondents No.6, 13, & 18. The cause title shall be amended accordingly.W.P.(C) No.3747/20041. In this petition, for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner-Delhi Development Authority has assailed the validity of an award dated 6th June, 2003 published by the respondent-Collector Land Acquisition in regard to a...
Aizaz Alam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT63
T.S. Thakur, J.1. All these review petitions, arise out of a common judgment and order passed by this Court in a batch of cases, challenging acquisition of land, owned by the petitioners for a public purpose. Messrs P.N. Lekhi and Ravinder Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners have, in the course of their extensive argument before us, urged that the judgment under review suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record in as much as this Court had not considered the following questions that fell for consideration in addition to the two questions that were formulated and answered by us:(i) That no public purpose existed for the acquisition in question nor was there any material to support any such purpose;(ii) That the total area required for 'Anjuman Sher-E-Gul Faroshan' was limited to around 4000 sq.yds whereas the respondent had notified a much larger area measuring 72 bighas. There was, according to learned counsel, no requirement for such an extensive ac...
Dinesh Kumar KaIn Vs. Assistant General Manager, Corpn. Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT550; 2006(89)DRJ335
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioner claims directions for quashing of an order dated 7-11-2003, which had determined that the period of his suspension would not be treated as under duty, without any consequent entitlement to back-wages, and service benefits. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested, and remanded to judicial custody, pursuant to an FIR lodged, alleging that he, inter alia, was guilty of having committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per regulations of the Respondent Bank, the petitioner was placed under suspension, immediately upon his arrest. The bank did not conduct a separate domestic enquiry; it placed the petitioner under suspension, by order dated 8-4-1992, awaiting the ultimate outcome of the trial. The petitioner was reinstated to the services, by an order dated 9-6-2003.Eventually, the criminal court acquitted the petitioner, on 18-8-2003, of the charges. The bank thereupon issued the impugned order, ...
Reliance Airports Developers P. Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTLJ296(Del); 129(2006)DLT662
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Judicial review of administrative action has its own limitations. The court examining the validity of any such action is not so much concerned with the correctness of the decision under challenge as it is with decision making process. It does not sit as a court of appeal to pronounce upon the correctness of the decision or appraise the material to arrive at its own conclusion and then substitute the same for that of the authority. The court is concerned with finding out whether the decision making process is vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. Even while doing so, the court is expected to exercise its powers under Article 226 with great care and caution and intervene only when such intervention would promote public interest. There is considerable authority for these propositions to which we shall refer in the course of this judgment, but before we do so, it is necessary to set out in brief the facts giving rise to these proceedings. 2. The genes...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »