Delhi Court July 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.
Lalita Rani and ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT108; II(2006)DMC310; 2006(90)DRJ385
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act), maintenance awarded by an order dated 6.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application filed under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act, has been questioned.2. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are that the respondent who was married to the petitioner, had preferred proceedings for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The proceedings were decreed by an order dated 5.8.1999. That order/decree is under challenge in a separate appeal, namely, FAO 351/1999. By order dated 5.8.1999, the appeal was admitted and the judgment and decree of the trial court was stayed.3. In the meanwhile, by way of final order on the appellant's application under Sections 24 and 26, the impugned order was passed on 6.7.1999.4. It is common case of the parties that the appellant is taking care of the two children born out of the wedlock. They resides with him. The elder child is a...
Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT347; II(2006)DMC332
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has concluded that a prima facie case against the petitioner has been made out in respect of offences under Sections 498-A/306 IPC.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that he is challenging the order with respect to the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC and not against that part of the order which pertains to the offence under Section 498-A for which he is ready to face the trial. Insofar as the offence under Section 306 is concerned, he immediately referred to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment to point out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had invoked the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to raise a presumption with regard to the abetment of suicide by the deceased [Smt. Vandana Sharma]. He submitted that this presumption cannot be raised inasmuch as ...
Moulana Asad Madani and ors. Vs. Abdul Hafiz
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR146(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT43
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this Judgment I shall dispose of an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') seeking the appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator, in respect of dispute which has arisen between the Applicants and the Respondent. Briefly stated, the Applicants claim 50 per cent rights over a partnership concern in which the remaining 50 per cent rights vest in the Respondent. Disputes having been arisen between the parties and legal action has been initiated by them.2. Ironically, the first to issue a notice seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator is the Respondent who addressed a notice to the several Applicants in terms of the communication of Sanjay Kumar Kumar, Advocate dated 3.2.2005. On 27.7.2005 in response to this notice the applicants had conveyed the names of three suggested or proposed Arbitrators. However, in that very month the Respondent filed Suit No. of 92 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, ...
Sharon Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT105; 2006(92)DRJ73
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been pending in this Court for almost three years; it was filed in October, 2003. The notice for initiation of arbitration proceedings was issued in terms of legal notice dated 23rd December, 2002, indubitably on behalf of the Applicant and Oberthur Card Systems Asia Pacific Pvt. Limited (hereafter referred to as `Oberthur') who has been imp leaded as a Respondent vide Orders of this Court dated February 14, 2005. In the said legal notice, reference has been made to the Agreement between the Applicant and the original sole respondent namely, Ericsson India Private Limited (Ericsson for brevity). Mr. Kher, learned Counsel appearing for Ericsson has filed the original Purchase Agreement which contains the Arbitration clause and it has been emphasised that this document has been deliberately withheld by the Applicant. There can be no two opinions that the Applicant has committed a laps...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)499; [2007]288ITR379(Delhi)
ORDERVipin Sanghi, J. 1. These appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act (for short the 'Act') have been preferred by the appellants against the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in TDS No. 117/Del/2004 relevant to the asst. yr. 2001-02 and TDS No. 68/Del/2004 relevant to the asst. yr. 2000-01 dt. 16th Sept., 20052. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeals are that the respondent-assessed had taken on lease a premises for the purposes of its head office. A separate agreement was entered into for hiring furniture and fixtures provided in the said premises. The assessed was deducting tax at source and depositing the same in respect of the rent in accordance with Section 194 I of the Act, while tax was being deducted at source (for short TDS) and deposited on the consideration being paid under the agreement for hire of furniture and fixtures under Section 194C of the Act.3. The aforesaid came to light when the TDS return f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mesco Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)495; [2007]288ITR219(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 9, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', for the assessment year 1995-96 arising out of I.T.A. No. 93/Del./2002.2. The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for issuance of a notice for initiation of reassessment proceedings.3. The 'reasons' recorded by the Assessing Officer are quoted in the order of the Tribunal and are as follows:Recording of reasons under Section 147 in this case the assessed has moved an application before the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95. The Settlement Commission has passed an order under Section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act on July 17, 1996, allowing the application to be proceeded with for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95.In view of this fact, I have reason to believe that the taxable income of the assessed for the financial year 1994-95 relevant to the assessment year 1995-96 ...
Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas262(Delhi); [2008]87SCL203(Delhi)
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. My attention has been drawn to the agreement dated November 11/12, 1998. Clause 4 of the said agreement is relevant and is reproduced below:HCL hereby ensures payment of lease rentals as due and payable by BHEL to be paid to MLL directly which rental is due and payable every quarter and is due to commence from the date of installation of the equipments at BHEL's site payable within 30 days of the end of the particular quarter during which the equipment is installed at BHEL and MLL will be treated as 'lessor' for the purpose of the same.It is further clarified that HCL will pay interest for the delay in obtaining receipt of lease rentals from BHEL pursuant to the performance under the lease agreement at 2 per cent, per month after 30 days from the respective due dates until payment thereof and further HCL will also make good to MLL the short-fall, if any, in the respective lease rental due and payable together with intere...
Rambagh Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN133(Delhi)
ORDERMadan B. Lakur, JJ.The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 15-12-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in Income Tax Appeal No. 2506/Del./99 relevant for the assessment year 1995-96.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that a short but substantial question of law arises in this appeal and that it may be appropriate if the matter is disposed of at this stage. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection if the matter is taken up for final disposal immediately.3. The two substantial questions of law that arise for consideration are:(a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the nature of the items of expenditure and without giving any basis or reason for the same?(b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the assessing officer with regard to the items of expenditure which were not eve...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikram Aditya and Associates (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)238
ORDERBy The Court:The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 9-9-2005 passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 1584/Del/2005 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. Broadly, the facts of the case are that the assessed purchased units of mutual funds on 9-2-2001 and sold them on 11-2-2001. Although it received the declared dividend of Rs. 43,54,838 yet he suffered an overall loss. The assessed adjusted its short-term capital loss against a long-term capital gains and the return was accepted by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act, revised the assessment on the ground that the assessed had resorted to a colourable device to evade tax, knowing fully well that it was going to incur a loss on sale of the mutual funds. In her decision dated 15-3-2005, the Commissioner of Income Tax described the transaction of the assessed as 'dividend stripping', that is a t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vikram Aditya and Associates P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: [2006]287ITR268(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 9, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'B' in I.T.A. No. 1584/Del/2005 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. Broadly, the facts of the case are that the assessed purchased units of mutual funds on February 9, 2001, and sold them on February 11, 2001. Although it received the declared dividend of Rs. 43,54,838 yet he suffered an overall loss. The assessed adjusted its short-term capital loss against long-term capital gains and the return was accepted by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, revised the assessment on the ground that the assessed had resorted to a colourable device to evade tax, knowing fully well that it was going to incur a loss on sale of the mutual funds. In her decision dated March 15, 2005, the Commissioner described the transaction of the assessed as 'divi...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »