Delhi Court May 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.
A-one Housing Complex Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)110ITD361(Delhi)
1. These are the cross-appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11-6-2004 pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000. The only and the common issue arising from these appeals relates to the addition of Rs. 1,90,10,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on account of unexplained share capital and share application money. The assessee is in appeal against the addition of Rs. 3,85,000 sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while revenue is in appeal against the deletion of Rs. 1,86,25,000 made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The briefly stated that the facts are these. The assessee is a limited E company which declared loss of Rs. 2,240 in respect of assessment year 1999-2000. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee-company had raised the share capital of Rs. 1,78,60,000 and share application money at Rs. 11,50,000. In support of the sa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hcl Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)226; [2007]292ITR299(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 8th February, 2006 passed by the Income-tax Department, Delhi Bench 'A' in I.T.A. No. 814/Del/03 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.2. The assessed had made provisions for bad and doubtful debts in its profit and loss account.3. According to the Assessing Officer this was not an ascertained liability and, thereforee, the amount was to be included in the book profits of the assessed in view of the Explanationn to Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of the view that the amount was an ascertained liability and had been shown as such in the profit and loss account of the assessed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT : [2002]255ITR273(SC) , this could not be changed. Moreover, the provision amounted to a diminution in the value of assets. Consequently, the amount could not be included in the book profits of the assessed.5. The Tribunal uph...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Shankari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT177; II(2007)DMC367; (2008)149PLR22
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. 382/01/2000 by which the Appellant's petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') was dismissed. 2. The marriage of the parties took place on 31.5.1987 and a child was born to them on 11.8.1988. 3. The case of the appellant was that soon after the marriage, the respondent misbehaved and used to quarrel with the members of the appellant's family on petty issues; she used to leave the matrimonial house without his permission and consent; that the parents of the respondent used to interfere in the matrimonial life of the respondent and that the respondent used to give rude replies to him and his parents. It is stated that on 16.6.1987 while going for a bath, appellant asked his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) for a towel which hi...
Harish Chander Drall Vs. Suresh Wati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC450
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellat's petition HMA No. 17/2000/94 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') on the ground of cruelty.2. The parties were married on 3.6.1982 and a child was born on 7.10.1993 but died immediately thereafter. The appellant lays the blame for the death of the child on account of the negligence of the respondent and her parents. His case is that soon after the marriage the relationship between the respondent and the members of his family became sour. The respondent used to have fits of mental unsoundness and when the appellant and his family tried to get her medically examined she refused and also abused the family of the appellant. It is then stated that the respondent pressurised the appellant to set up a separate residence and the appellant did not agree to this. The respondent used to f...
Smt. Abha Arora Vs. Angela Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT506; I(2008)DMC507; 2007(96)DRJ221
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff was the absolute owner of the property bearing No. F-18 Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi pursuant to a perpetual sub lease dated 16.12.1970. The present suit for was filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants to restrain them from entering the suit property and to direct defendant No. 1 to permanently quit the suit property.2. Defendant No. 2 is the son of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is her daughter in law and the present suit is a result of souring of relations between the plaintiff and her daughter in law. The dispute is really one between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.3. Issues in the suit were framed on 06.03.2007 and the matter was set down for trial. Defendant No. 1 was restrained from entering the suit property by an ad interim order dated 05.12.2006 and the application for setting aside the same was dismissed on 10.01.2007. An appeal was filed against the said order which was disposed ...
Directorate of Education and anr. Vs. Air Force Gyan Jyoti School and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ75
ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. These appeals under the Letters Patent arise out of a common order passed by a single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant Directorate of School Education has been directed to pay to the Air Force Gyan Jyoti School a grant-in-aid of Rs. 6.13 lacs and a monthly aid of Rs. 1.6 lac per month to enable the school to meet its financial deficit and thereby avoid its proposed closure. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the writ petitions pending before the Single Bench could also be withdrawn and taken up for hearing Along with these appeals as nothing further would survive for consideration once an arrangement to run the school is made by this Court in these appeals. We have accordingly withdrawn WP Nos. 5209/2006 to 5211/2006, 5509/2006 to 5528/2006 and 6101/2006 to 6103/2006 from the Single Bench and heard them together with the appeals which shall all stand disposed of by this common order.2. Air Force Gyan Jyoti School at Palam was established way ...
J.K. Bansal Vs. Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ487
A.K. Sikri, J.RFA (OS) No. 17/20061. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code on the original side of this Court. As per the record, the appellant could not be served by ordinary process and, therefore, substituted service through publication was ordered. Since no appearance was filed inspite of this service, the suit was decreed. Challenging this judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed and the ground taken is that the appellant was not served and was not aware of the decree.2. There is a delay of 563 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed the application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC on the ground that there was no service for setting aside the said decree. This application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order date 1.3.2006 and the said order is reported as Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. v. Shri Jai Kishan Basal 2006 III AD (Delhi) 489.3. We have gone through the said other dated 1.3.2006. The order would reveal ...
Padmini Polymers Ltd. and Shri Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC171
1. Appellant M/s Padmini Polymers Ltd. imported a consignment of CD Roms and sought their clearance under a bill of entry dated 05/09/97 filed before Customs, New Delhi. The consignment was described in the invoice as "Multimedia Application Software on CD ROM". The appellant also sought exemption from Customs Duty under notification No.11/97-CUS dated 01/4/97 which exempted "Computer Software". The titles of the CD Roms under import were as under: 2. Customs Authorities doubted the eligibility of the CD Roms to the exemption and issued show cause notice to the appellant. Notice also proposed confiscation of the CD Roms for mis-declaration.3. The appellant contested the notice; but failed. In adjudication, the Commissioner held that the International Cook Book series (a to e) and "Cinderalla" (serial No. L) do not qualifying for exemption. The exemption was allowed on "College Funding Finder", "Complete Car Care", "Complete House" and "clickart Select" (serial Nos. f to I, k & m o...
Aditya Consultant Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ179CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The appellant agitates the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 10.10.2006. In the impugned order, the Commissioner had made the following observations while upholding the order of the lower authority imposing penalty. Para 4 and 5 of the impugned order in appeal reads as follows: I observe that the appellant has neither deposited service tax for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2005 nor filed the ST-3 return for the half year ending Sept. 2005 within the prescribed period by 25.10.2005. The appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6, 7 and the service tax Rules 1994. The appellant has deposited the entire amount of service tax i.e. Rs. 40,800/- on 26.12.2005 and also filed the ST-3 return on 26.12.2005. The appellant also deposited due interest of Rs. 2194/- on 3.1.2006 for delayed payment of service tax before issuance of show cause notice dated 1.3.2006. I find that the appellant has not disputed about the paymen...
Punjab Paper Agency Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ163CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. According to the applicant, there was a delay of 17 days mainly due to the reason that the Counsel who was appointed on an earlier occasion has not acted promptly in the matter and on this reason they had to change the Counsel, so that the matter is taken up before this Tribunal. According to the authorized representative (DR), the cause shown is not sufficient mainly because in paragraph No. 4 of the COD application, it is reported that only on January 14, 2007 the appellant went in the office of the Counsel and got to know that his appeal was not filed by him. For this, the Counsel states that the typing error has occurred in his COD application in paragraph 2. For the words "05.01.06", this date may be read as "05.01.07" which was acceptable to the learned DR.2. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. COD application is allowed. Appeal shall come up for hearing in its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »