Delhi Court October 2007 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.G. Scientific Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)308; [2009]311ITR401(Delhi)
ORDER1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Revenue has challenged the judgment dated 24th February, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' ('Tribunal') in ITA No. 4045/Del/1999 for the Assessment Year 1995-96.2. Admit.3. The following question of law arises for consideration:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs. 9 lakh sought to be written off by the assessed as a bad debt was in fact a business loss and liable to be treated as such?Filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. The case of the assessed before the Assessing Officer ('AO'), when asked to explain the writing off the sum of Rs. 9 lakh as bad debts, was that one Shri Harmohan Dhawan had been inducted in the Board of Directors along with Shri Sabharwal. These two Directors had on behalf of the assessed made a down payment of Rs. 9 lakh to M/s. Kapoor Sons for purc...
Devki Devi Vs. Anil Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1278
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant in the present appeal seeks enhancement in the award over and above the amount as already awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 for loss of financial dependence besides a sum of Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium/ non-pecuniary damages with a further sum of Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses and thus, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 has been awarded in favor of the appellant. The case involves a young boy of 18 years who as per the appellant was working as a labourer in some canteen. In the absence of any evidence led by the appellant to prove his income and due to nature of the employment, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000 into consideration as laid down in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. After deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards personal expenses and after taking note of the age of the dependants, multiplier of 11 has been applied and the Tribunal has arrived at the said figure of ...
Masroor Ahmed Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ137
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a very unusual case. The petitioner was originally seeking bail [Bail Appln 4746/2006] in respect of FIR No. 817 dated 12.12.2006 registered at police station Preet Vihar under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner's bail application filed before the sessions court had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 20.12.2006. Consequently, an application for bail [Bail Appln 4746/2006] had been filed before this Court. During the pendency of the said bail application, in which this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner, the complainant and the petitioner have arrived at a settlement which has been reduced to writing in the form of a compromise deed dated 01.09.2007. By virtue of the said deed, the petitioner and the complainant have decided to settle all their disputes and cases which include the present case as well as cases arising out of FIR No. 637/2006 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and FIR No. 79/200...
Action Construction Equipment Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC69
1. appellant is challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 22.9.03. The following extracts from the said impugned order as appearing in para 9-11 cover the background: 9. I have carefully considered the matter. The first issue to be decided is whether the clearances are to be treated as effected by the appellant. The appellant's name is Action Construction Equipment P. Ltd. and on their letter head on record, the capital words ACE which admittedly is the brand name of appellant in red are printed on top right side. The name of the other unit which is claimed as proprietary concern of Shri Vipin Sharma has also been given as ACE Industries which to an independent person would look as the same. Shri Vipin Sharma who was Manager Accounts and authorized signatory of the appellant even on the date of visit submits resignation and floats as proprietary unit to manufacture the goods which were manufactured by the appellant. Shri Sharma admits that there is no manufacturing activ...
Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ49CESTATNew(Delhi)
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,71,896/- and penalties. The contention is that while computing the liability amount had paid in cash is taken into consideration whereas the tax is paid from Cenvat credit that has not taken into consideration. The contention is that they had paid tax from the Cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 2,27,919/-. The contention is that Revenue is also calculating the tax liability by taking into consideration the rate of Service Tax @ 10.2% whereas when the bills were raised in respect of the service provided the rate of tax was only 8% and relevant date for deciding the rate of Service Tax is the date on which bills were raised. In view of this, we find that the applicant had a strong case in their favour, therefore, the pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties are waived. Stay petition is allowed....
Narayan International Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(122)ECC235; 2007(148)LC235(Delhi); 2008(221)ELT183(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner claims a direction against the respondents, i.e. Collector of Customs and the International Airports Authority of India, (IAAI) for release of its goods imported from Singapore, for which Bill of Entry was filled on 23.06.1990, without payment of ground rent demurrage etc.2. The Petitioner imported a consignment of Y.K.K. Polyster zippers type LFC-32, No.3, size 8, of Japanese origin from Singapore through invoice dated 15.06.1990. The total number of zippers imported were 4,10,000 pieces. The value declared was of Singapore dollars 12 per 100 pieces. The total value of the consignments was Singapore $ 53,300/- C.I.F. The Bill of Entry was filed on 23.06.1990.3. The Petitioner did not insist on a show cause notice as it was incurring heavy demurrage. The Addl. Collector enhanced the value of the goods imported without hearing it. The petitioner, thereforee, approached the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) by an appeal. The...
Shyam Babu Gupta S/O Sh., Prg Gupta Auto Sales and Vs. State (Govt. of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ951
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 257/04, registered against the petitioners under Section 406 IPC at P.S. Malviya Nagar.2. The crux of FIR is that the complainant/respondent no.2 purchased a three-wheeler scooter by getting it financed from the petitioners. Thereafter, he had paid some monthly Installments. On 9th September, 2002 he had given his three-wheeler scooter to his driver for plying, when two persons occupied the scooter from Sai-Du-la-jab as passengers and came to Saket and after reaching Saket, they told the driver that they are from the finance company and since the Installment has not been paid, they are taking the vehicle. The complainant reached at the spot. Both the petitioners told the complainant that, since he had not paid the Installment, they are taking the vehicle and shall return the same only after he makes the payment. The complainant informed the police, who also told him that he ca...
Sushil BhasIn and ors. Vs. Sundeep Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi44; I(2008)BC371; 2007(98)DRJ521
Aruna Suresh, J.1. The suit of the appellants herein, filed on the original side of this Court, has been dismissed by the learned single Judge as barred by limitation vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2006. The learned Judge opined that even on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, the suit was ex facie time barred and, thereforee, there was no need to even issue summons to the defendants. Dissatisfied by such a course of action adopted by the learned single Judge, the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Notice in this appeal was issued to the respondents, who were defendants in the suit. We heard learned Counsel for the appellants and defendants at length.3. Before adverting to the controversy raised and taking note of the submissions of the respective counsel, it would be necessary to take stock of certain facts, as pleaded by the appellants in the plaint. We do so because of the simple reason, namely, at this stage there is obviously no written statement and version ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harish J. Punjabi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR424(Delhi)
C.M. No. 12713 of 2007 (Delay)1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.2. The application stands disposed of.I.T.A. No. 942 of 2007.3. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '(the Act'), the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated October 20, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'D' in I.T.A. No. 4923/Delhi/2003 relevant to the assessment year 1996-97.4. The assessed was not served with the notice under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and on this factual ground, the Tribunal held that the proceedings for the assessment were void.5. Learned Counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel : [1987]166ITR163(SC) to contend that there is a distinction between the service of notice and issuance of notice. In that case, there was no dispute about the fact that notice under Section 147 of the Act was issued to the assessed by registered post ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›