Delhi Court June 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.
Manoj @ Kali Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4759; 132(2006)DLT42; 2006(90)DRJ31
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 02.03.2006, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 10.02.2006 rejecting the petitioner's bail application, has been dismissed. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned judgment and in particular paragraph 4 thereof to indicate that it is an admitted position that there is nothing adverse qua the petitioner in the Social Investigation Report. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that despite the Social Investigation Report being entirely in favor of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and refused to grant him bail on the ground that if the petitioner were to be granted bail, it would defeat the ends of justice. The exact words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal ar...
Cit Vs. Majestic Hotel Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)330; [2007]293ITR185(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Tribunal. Delhi Bench and shall stand disposed of by this order. Before. adverting to the questions that arise for consideration, it is necessary to briefly state the facts giving rise to these appeals.2. The respondent-company is running a five-star hotel in Ludhiana, Punjab. In the course of a survey of the premises of the respondent it was found that it had failed to deduct tax at source under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), while paying interest on the loan borrowed by the respondent from the Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (TFCI). The assessing officer held the respondent-company to be 'an assessed in default' in terms of section 201(1) of the Act for the financial years 1994-95 to 2001-02. Ali aggregate tax liability of Rs. 3,41,46,984 was, on that basis, determined against the respondent. In addition, a sum of Rs. 2,13,89,341 towards interest w...
Shri Sukh Ram Vs. Acit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)336; [2006]285ITR256(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 27th January, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. There is only one issue urged by learned Counsel for the Appellant and that is with regard to the addition made under Section 69A of the Act on account of cash found during the course of search. 3. It appears that the residential premises of the assessed in New Delhi and Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) were searched and during that search a large amount of cash was recovered. 4. Initially, the assessed denied possession of the cash but later on he admitted his possession in a statement recorded on oath. The statement was not retracted and, thereforee, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the cash amount was under the control and in possession of the assessed. 5. Under Section 132(4A) of the Act, the Revenue was entitled to draw a presumption against the assessed in respect of the cash f...
Airport Authority of India Vs. S.K. Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT594
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.09.2003 whereby the appellant was directed to pay arrears of salary to the respondent from the date he was given notional seniority.2. The facts relevant for purpose of deciding this appeal are that respondent Mr. S. K. Verma, was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) at I.G.I Airport, New Delhi. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 19.04.1993 to consider the promotion of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Manager(Civil). A sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of the respondent and as a result of this the recommendations of DPC in respect of respondent were kept in a sealed cover. Serious allegations of corruption were being inquired into against the respondent although no charge-sheet had been issued to him. The allegations against the respondent were that as Junior Engineer he, acting prejudicially and against th...
Bhagwati Traders Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT508; [2006]148STC437(Delhi)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. With the consent of the parties this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner/dealer was granted registration under Delhi Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax with effect from 11.5.1988. The registration was cancelled on 29.12.1989. An ex parte assessment order dated 7.3.1994 was passed by Assessing Officer against the petitioner holding him liable to pay sales Tax under Delhi Sales Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,50,97,500/- and under Central Sales Tax a sum of Rs. 9,90,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 2000/-was imposed in each case for not filing the returns. The assessment order was passed on the basis of 'best judgment'. Petitioner had got issued 401 ST-35 forms 148 ST-1 forms 4F forms 5 C forms during the period of registration. The Assessing Officer, while passing assessment order on the basis of 'best judgment', considered the full value of these forms and assessed gross turn over of the petitioner at Rs. 30,...
Shri Gian Chand Kochar Vs. the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2963; 2006(90)DRJ475
Manmohan Sarin, J1. Petitioner, Shri Gian Chand Kishore, by this petition filed through his wife Smt.Gulshan Devi, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeks quashing of order of detention bearing No.F.5/4/2005-Home(P-II) dated 22nd August, 2005, passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act).2. Pursuant to the order passed on 22nd August, 2005, petitioner was arrested on 23rd August, 2005 and has been in detention since then. Petitioner had submitted a representation against his detention to the Lt. Governor on 29th September/4th October, 2005, which has been annexed as Annexure P-6 to the writ petition. The same was rejected by the Lt. Governor on 19.10.2005. The State Advisory Board, constituted under the COFEPOSA Act, also considered the matter and has given its opinion dated 20th October, 2005 to the effect that ...
The State Vs. Bal Kishan @ Bali
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3508; 130(2006)DLT242; 2006(89)DRJ427
J.M. Malik, J. 1. The respondent/accused was exonerated from the charges under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24th December, 1981. Aggrieved by that order, the State has preferred the present appeal. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are: Lakhi Shah Kohli and Kirori Shah Kohli, cousins were partners in business. After the death of Lakshi Shah Kohli, his son Satpal Kohli, the deceased, continued his business with Kirori Shah Kohli. The said business terminated 10-12 years prior to the present incident. Their relations became sour due to disputes over money matters. Bal Kishan, respondent/ accused, is the son of Kirori Shah Kohli. Satpal Kohli, his brother Dharampal Kohli, their wives Pushpa Kohli and Asha Kohli, their mother Vidya Wanti and family including Deepak deceased's son aged about 10 years resided in house No. I-48, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. 2. On 3rd July, 1980 at about 9.25 p.m., ASI Krishan...
Cit Vs. Itat and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2005)204CTR(Del)349; [2006]155TAXMAN378(Delhi); 196ITR641
T.S. Thakur, J.:Issue rule. With consent, this writ petition has been heard for final disposal.2. The petitioner has in this petition assailed the validity of an order passed by the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the Tribunal has recalled its order dated 7-8-2003 passed in ITA No. 151/Del/2000 arid posted the said appeal for rehearing after notice to the parties. The controversy arises in the following circumstances .3. Shri Ratti Ram Gotewala was along with his family members carrying on business in sarees at Delhi and Calcutta. He was a partner in M/s. Rati Ram Ram Vinod and M/s. Rati Ram Ram Vinod & Co., besides being a director in M/s. Rati Ram Sarees Store (P) Ltd. He was also the proprietor of M/s. R. Rakesh Behari & Co.4. A search was conducted at the residential and business premises of the group concerns mentioned above and various incriminating material including certain Hundies depicting various transactions seized. Since the IT department wa...
B.K. Mathur and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ536
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, the above three petitions filed by Journalists, Cameramen, Correspondents, Editorial Consultants, Reporters and others who were allotters of Government accommodation under the Press Pool are being decided. The petitioners are aggrieved by the guidelines which came into force on 8th March, 2001 regarding allotment of accommodation to accredited journalists and press-cameramen. Petitioners assail notices dated 16th April, 2001 issued pursuant to the Guidelines requiring them to vacate the premises allotted to them by 15th October, 2001 i.e within a period of six months. Petitioners challenge the said guidelines on various grounds enumerated in the writ petitions and seek quashing of the notices and the proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. A mandamus is also sought for the allotment to the petitioners being continued in terms of the existing guidelines.2. As regards interim orders in W...
Sony India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)341
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 assails the correctness of an order passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi insofar as the Tribunal has disallowed a deduction towards contribution of a sum of Rs. 4,31,342 made by the assessed to the gratuity fund and a sum of Rs. 35,31,223 contributed towards the superannuation fund on the ground that the said funds were not approved during the relevant period.2. For the asst. yr. 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 1,15.76,566. The assessed's case before the AO was that it had entered into an agreement with the LIC of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the CIT for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund w.e.f. 30th Sept., 1998. A similar approval for superannuation scheme was also granted...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »