Delhi Court September 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.
Yog Raj Soni Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)912
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 5th Feb., 2002 for the asst. yr. 1998-99, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. First grievance of the assessee revolves around estimation of net profit rate of 8 per cent on gross contract receipts. In his order under Section 143(3), the AO observed that on 8th March, 2001, the Authorised Representative attended and produced books of account which were partly examined. The assessee is engaged in business of civil construction. During the year under assessment, gross contract receipts have been declared at Rs. 3,65,28,643 as against Rs. 1,82,15,556 in the immediately preceding assessment year. The net profit ratio against gross receipts declared by the assessee comes to 1.22 per cent as against 0.99 per cent and 1.52 per cent in the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1996-97, respectively.3. He further observed that further examination of various details of expenses revealed that fo...
Badri Vishal Aggarwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)418
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 28th March, 2002 for the asst. yr. 1998-99, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the IT Act, 1961. 1. The action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the action of the learned AO in taking recourse to Section 147/148 framing reassessment is illegal arbitrary, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the action of the learned AO in taking recourse to reassessment without recording reasons under Section 148(2), is illegal arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the action of the learned AO in taking sale of VDIS jewellery at Rs. 5,95,850 as against the loss declared at Rs. 4,643 in the return of income is illegal arbitrary, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The action of the learned...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Binoy Jacob
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)967
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 10th July, 2002 for the asst. yr. 1998-99, in the matter of order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that 2/3rd part of the property at 45-A, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi was being used for business purpose when no evidence was placed on record by the assessee about the business use or the income being derived from such business while on the other hand on local inquiry, it was found that total property was residential and was being used for residence only. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting an amount of Rs. 2,70,377 out of total addition of Rs. 5,40,754 in the foreign travelling expenses when there was no evidence of any consultancy/business during such tour or any income being shown on that account in P&L a/c specially when he was accompanied by his family and the so-called recovery of Rs. 99,10,506 from M/s Sumitomo Corporation nex...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Shyam Pulp and Board Mills
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)973
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 31st Jan., 2003 for the asst. yr. 1998-99, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,30,000 made by the AO under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of unsecured loans by admitting additional evidence in contravention of r. 46A of IT Rules, 1962.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In the course of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the AO observed that during the relevant previous year the assessee company has raised fresh unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,68,57,250. The assessee was asked vide notice under Section 142(1), dt. 18th Aug., 2000 to give names and addresses of the persons from whom fresh loans were raised. In its reply filed on 12th Oct., 2000 the assessee furnis...
Mohd. Farukh Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ206
J.M. Malik, J.1. The learned trial court handed down a verdict of guilty and sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. One Lac, in default further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act. The indictment against the appellant was that on 23rd March, 1992 at about 5.25 PM, opposite Palace Cinema within the bounds of Police Station Subzi Mandi, he was nicked with opium weighing 10 Kilograms.2. A two fold argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant to assail the judgment of trial court. The first argument submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant was that following a tip off, the appellant was apprehended, one bag of green colour was recovered from the right hand of the accused which contained the above said contraband. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that no notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the appellant. In support of his cas...
Indian Management Advisors and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Spiceco ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)333; [2007]289ITR179(Delhi)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 261A of the Income Tax Act filed by the appellant against the ITAT, Delhi order dated 23.9.2003 in respect of assessment year 1991-92. 2. The undisputed facts are that the assessed/ petitioner filed its Income Tax return for the assessment year 1990-91. By this return assessed claimed 100% depreciation on the soft drink bottles which the assessed had purchased from M/s Glass & Ceramics Decorators, Bombay ( herein after called manufacturer) and leased out to M/s Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad (hereinafter called lessee). The purchase of bottles numbering 5,46,000 was made vide 30 invoices from the period 28.3.91 to 30.3.91. Under the directions of the assessed, these bottles were to be directly supplied by manufacturer to the lessee. The lease agreement for the soft drink bottles between the assessed and lessee was entered into on 15.2.91. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessed for 100% depreciation only ...
Sudershan Sinha and anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ189
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has initiated this Suit for eviction, possession, injunction mesne profits and damages. Pleadings have been completed. The Plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the Court may 'pass a judgment on admission in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in terms of the prayer clause contained in the Suit'. It cannot even be imagined how a decree for mesne profits can justifiably be granted at this stage since neither an 'admission' nor cogent evidence is available. In the interest of justice, therefore, I shall at the present moment restrict the prayer to the claim for possession/eviction alone.2. The facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs are the owners of plot No. 120 B, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. The Plaint states that the Defendant was inducted as a licensee for a term of eleven months which expired on 24.7.1998. This period is stated to have been rene...
R.C. Gupta Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 134(2006)DLT527
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 29.4.1999 passed by the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) disposing of the departmental appeal of the petitioner whereby the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, viz., 'reduction to minimum of the time-scale for a period of five years' was modified to that of 'reduction in his time-scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect.' It was further directed that during the period of reduction, the petitioner will not earn increments and after the expiry of the reduction period it would have the effect of postponing future increments.Background facts2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was first appointed as Inspector Grade II on 26.4.1963 in the DVB. On 5.1.1988 he transferred to the post of Assistant Engineer (Zone), Najafgarh. He was transferred to Assistant Engineer (District) on 10.6.1988. While on the said post, he was given additional charg...
Vijay Kumar and Naveen Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ298
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition has been filed inasmuch as the petitioners are aggrieved by the order on charge dated 30.5.1997 as well as the formal charge framed on the same date by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 308/427/34 IPC. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated, at the outset, that he is not challenging the order insofar as the charge under Section 427/34 IPC is concerned. However, he is aggrieved by the framing of the charge under Section 308/34 IPC and it is to this limited extent that this revision petition jis being argued.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners straightaway drew my attention to the impugned order on charge and to paragraph 7 thereof wherein the following is recorded:7. In the present case it is appearing on record in the testimony of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other material available on record that the parties did have a quarrel...
Sudershan Sinha anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ142
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has initiated this Suit for eviction, possession, injunction, mesne profits and damages. Pleadings have been completed. The Plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the Court may 'pass a judgment on admission in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in terms of the prayer clause contained in the Suit'. It cannot even be imagined how a decree for mesne profits can justifiably be granted at this stage since neither an 'admission' nor cogent evidence is available. In the interest of justice, therefore, I shall at the present moment restrict the prayer to the claim for possession/eviction alone.2. The facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs are the owners of plot No. 120 B, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. The Plaint states that the Defendant was inducted as a licensee for a term of eleven months which expired on 24.7.1998. This period is stated to have been ren...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »