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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Multi System Securities P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: [2008]305ITR298(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated August 31, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I' in I.T.A. No. 4739/Del/04 relevant to the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessee was following a mercantile system of accounting. There was some discrepancy between the bills raised and the payments received and this was explained by the assessee on the ground that it was maintaining a running account in respect of its clients.3. Details filed by the assessee showed that it had raised bills for wages of Rs. 1,90,06,470 and it had received a total amount of Rs. 2,38,23,964 from various parties. The assessee was maintaining an opening balance in respect of its customers and explained that some amounts were still to be recovered and the receipts included amounts received towards balances which were outstanding at the end of the preceding year. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with this explanation and added a sum of Rs. 18,49,727 as undisclosed receipts of th...
Joginder Singh Vs. Gurdeep Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi278; 2007(96)DRJ321
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by Mr. Joginder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant, for short) against the Order dated 16th March, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing his application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short). By the said amendment application, the appellant wanted to incorporate the following sentence in paragraph 7 of the preliminary objections and paragraph 24 of the reply on merits:That the market value of the properties even at the time of filing of the suit on 19-8-2001 of Lajpat Nagar Property was of Rs. 1 crore and Sarojini Nagar Property was of Rs. 3 crore. The plaintiff was suppose to pay Court on both these properties on Rs. 4 crore and not as Rs. 33/- only.2. Learned single Judge has dismissed the said application on two grounds. Firstly, it was observed that the application was not maintainable in view ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR125(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated October 28, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', in I.T.A. No. 84/Del/2002 relevant to the assessment year 1997-98.2. The assessed filed its return of income in which it included a long-term capital gain of Rs. 6,63,746 as a part of the book profits calculated under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessed computed tax at 20 per cent, in respect of the long-term capital gain and at 40 per cent, in respect of the remaining income.3. In an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the Assessing Officer noted that the returned total income under Section 115JA of the Act was Rs. 39,50,258 and he levied tax on this at 40 per cent. According to learned Counsel for the assessed this was incorrect and tax should have been levied on the long-term capital gain at 20 per cent, and at 40 per cent, on the rest of the income.4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessed preferred an ap...
Asha Lata Sharma and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ297
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Ms. Asha Lata Sharma and Mr. Ajay Sharma are legal representatives of Mr. R.D. Sharma. The appellants have challenged judgment dated 12th August, 2004 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2899/2001 which was originally filed by Mr. R.D. Sharma.2. The appellants herein claim right to a plot bearing No. 13/15, Tihar-I, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi measuring 103 sq. yds. The said plot was originally allotted to Mr. Parmanand in 1962. Mr. Parmanand expired on 25th November, 1985 leaving behind Ms. Daulati Bai, his wife, Ms. Kaushalaya Devi-daughter and Mr. Raj Kumar-son. Mr. R.D. Sharma has claimed that Ms. Daulati Bai and Ms. Kaushalaya Devi have executed no claim certificate for transfer of the said plot in his favour. However, Mr. Raj Kumar claims that he has inherited the said plot. There are disputes pending between Mr. R.D. Sharma, now represented by his legal representatives, and Mr. Raj Kumar. However, it is not necessary...
industrial Security Associates Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ171CESTATNew(Delhi)
2. The facts of the case are that SCN dt. 21.4.05 was issued to the appellant alleging that it had rendered security service during the period Oct'99 to March'04 and that security service was liable to service tax. Demand of Rs. 8 lakhs was based on appellant's bills/invoices to various parties for the service rendered during this period. Another demand of over Rs. 5 lakhs was raised on the ground that the appellant had rendered service, though invoices covering those clients are not available. This finding was because there were gaps in the Bill Nos. issued by the appellant. The finding is that service was rendered under 846 such "unavailable bills". In the absence of bills, the show cause notice assumed an aggregate value of Rs. 2075/- per such unavailable bill. The aggregate value was computed based on such an assumption based on the statements of other security service agencies.3. Under the impugned order, the demand of over Rs. 8 lakhs in regard to available invoices, remains rem...
Bharati Hexacom India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)7STR438
1. This is an appeal challenging the order made on 11.7.06 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 2,79,675/- sanctioned to the appellant by the lower authorities.The reasons given for this rejection are contained in paragraph 12 to 14 of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner which are as follows: 12. I find that the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-II, Jaipur while sanctioning the refund claim for Rs. 2,79,675/- of the assessee has mainly followed relied upon the CESTAT Final order No. 8/2003-NB(A) and Service Tax/Misc Order No. 07/2003 NB(A) dated 26.06.2003 passed in the case of same assessee pertaining to refund of Service Tax amount paid as Service Tax on leased circuits. I further find that the said relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal has not been accepted by the department an appeal against the same has been filed in the Hon'ble Raj. High Court, Jaipur. I also find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the ab...
Focus Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Second Foundation India Pvt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CompLJ127(Del); [2007]79SCL353(Delhi)
Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of petitioner's petition under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company and for appointment of Official Liquidator as the provisional liquidator in respect of the affairs and assets of the respondent company and for restraining the respondent company from disposing of transferring, selling, alienating or parting with its assets in any manner whatsoever. 2. The petitioner contended that company was established for the purpose of developing and sourcing manpower by recruiting, educating and employing, bringing up and giving intensive training to professionals in various disciples of manufacturing and service related to information technology, marketing, accounting and other services and to act as consultant for recruitment services and to provide recruitment solutions and various other services. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent company was incorporated at Delhi and ...
Pt. Kanahya Lal Punj Charitable Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exem ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)311; [2008]297ITR66(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short as 'Act') the assessed has challenged the order dated 31st January, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'F' Bench, New Delhi (in short as 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 457/Del/1999 for the assessment year 1997-98.2. The assessed is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act as well as under Section 12-A of the Act. The assessed is having income mainly from the interest on fixed deposits and donations. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessed has advanced huge amount to M/s Punj Lloyd Limited and as such he raised a query as to why Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2)(a) of the Act be not invoked as no adequate interest has been charged on such amount, though that company was substantially interested in the trust. From the bank statements, the Assessing Officer found that as on 31st March, 1997 a ...
Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT78
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alias for directions to the respondent to reimburse the the petitioner for full amount paid by him to the National Heart Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') for an open heart surgery conducted on the petitioner and consequently, to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,875/- to the petitioner.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Daftari posted in the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, is a subscriber of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). The petitioner underwent medical treatment for his heart ailment at the Institute for which permission was granted by the respondents on 12th March, 1999. The petitioner underwent a coronary angiography test in the said Institute for which he was granted an advance of Rs. 10,800/-. Upon completion of the tests, he was advised to undergo an open heart surgery at the Institute which is duly recognized by the...
Ramesh Chand Tripathi Vs. Lily Joshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ785
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Though various grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal at the hearing today, the learned Counsel for the appellant restricts challenge to only one issue, namely, the finding in the impugned award that considering that the deceased Vinod Kumar Joshi was a pillion rider, award has not to be satisfied by the insurance company in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. Date of accident is 25.10.1983. Deceased died in the midnight of 6/7.11.1983 due to the accident.3. Claim petition had to be adjudicated under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Thus, the issue has to be considered in view of Section 95 of the said Act.4. Needless to state, the Supreme Court held that a pillion rider would not be a third party and, thereforee, unless a specific premium was paid in respect of injury or death to a pillion rider on a two-wheeler scooter, insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the award.5. Said decision has be...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »