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.
Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj @ Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT145
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25-02-2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions case No. 35/01 in respect of FIR No. 538/95 registered at Vasant Kunj police station whereby the appellant has been held guilty for having committed robbery and murder of two persons while committing robbery on the night of 16/17-11-95 at house No. B- 1/1088, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The appellant felt that he has been wrongly convicted and so he has preferred this appeal.2. The relevant facts leading to the conviction of the appellant are that the complainant Rakesh Khanna(PW-1) was residing with his wife and two children at house No. B-1/1088, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. On 16-11-95 the complainant along with his wife Laveena(PW-2) had gone to attend some wedding leaving behind at their house their nine years old daughter Prachi and four months old daughter Niharika in the company of their maid servant Lalita. When the complainant and his wife retu...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Atul Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)42; [2008]299ITR383(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd March, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench SMC, New Delhi in ITA No. 4824-25/Del/2004 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.2. The assessed had purchased shares of M/s Globe Commercials Ltd. through M/s Maheshwari Sons, stock and share broker. Subsequently, these shares were sold at a much higher value through another broker Satish Kumar Goel, proprietor of R.K. Aggarwal & Co. The assessed had disclosed long term capital gains arising from the transaction.3. It appears that some intra-departmental information was received by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the assessed had taken a bogus entry of long term capital gain after paying the equivalent amount in cash together with premium for the accommodation entry to Satish Kumar Goel. This information was received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Gurgaon. Based on the information received, the Assessing Officer...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha Iron and Ferro Metal Corporation L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT161; [2008]296ITR140(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 16th June, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA No. 915/Del/1999, ITA No. 2389/Del/2000 and ITA No. 4366/Del/2004 relevant for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98.2. The assessed carries on the business of manufacturing and production of CTD bars as also different types of iron rods. The assessed used to procure the raw material, that is, billets from the open market. The assessed decided to manufacture the raw material on its own and for this purpose it set up a Steel Melting Shop. In the course of setting up the Steel Melting Shop, the assessed incurred substantial expenditure and this was shown by the assessed in its books as capital expenditure incurred. The assessed also filed its returns on this basis.3. Later the assessed filed revised returns wherein it claimed that the expenditure was revenue expenditure having been incurred for the expansion of its business. On this basis, ...
Umesh Tandon and ors. Vs. Indian Technolgocial Products
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC271
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This petition is for quashing of criminal proceedings i.e. complaint filed by the respondent for alleged commission of offences under Sections 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner accused issued a cheque for Rs. 25482/- on 14.6.2000. It was dishonoured upon presentation in the normal course of business. It was again presented on 28.6.2000 but not honoured. On the third occasion, it was presented on 5.9.2000 and dishonoured on 7.9.2000. The dishonour memo was issued on 14.9.2000 and the complainant issued a legal notice in terms of Section 138 on 21.9.2000. It is also undisputed fact that on 16.11.2000, after issuance of the notice and non-compliance with its terms, the complainant presented the cheque a fourth time allegedly on request of the accused petitioner. This time too the cheque was returned and a second notice was issued before the complaint was filed.3. After process w...
Taipack Limited and ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR402(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS.1. This petition has been filed by M/s Taipack Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (The Act) challenging the award dated 14.8.2001 made by sole arbitrator Shri Krishan Lal Aneja in claim No. 2000-01 titled 'Ram Kishor Nagar Mal v. Taipack Ltd.' 2. The impugned award has been challenged on two broad grounds:1. The arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter upon the reference as there was no arbitration agreement between the parties under which the disputes could have been arbitrated upon. 2. The award is in violation of the public policy of India, as it is based on incorrect interpretation and application of laws in force in India. It violates provisions of The Limitation Act, 1963 and Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Brief facts, as germane to the controversy are that the petitioner had placed an order for supply of BOPP films upon the...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HighgaIn Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)441; [2008]304ITR325(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 10th March, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 4438/Del/05 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad in law?3. Filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. The assessed carries on the business of financing and investment. In respect of the assessment year 1997-98, the assessed filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. 42,700/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 24th March 1998.5. On 28th April, 2003, the Assessing Officer received a letter from the Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv...
Anant Spinning Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ182CESTATNew(Delhi)
The applicant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22.12.2006 which has confirmed the tax liability of Rs. 9,00,438/- demanded under the Order-in-Original dated 11.8.2006. It has however, reduced the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 while confirming the penalty under Section 78 which was equivalent to the tax amount confirmed.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant argues that services were not rendered in India during the relevant period i.e. between 09.07.2001 and 15.06.2005 and hence they were not liable to pay service tax. In this context, he relies upon a judgment by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ishikawajma Harima Heavy Industries Limited v. Director of Income Tax (SC) reported in (2007) ITR 228 408 (SC) for making a proposition, clothed in his own words "services which are rendered out of India even if used in India are considered as services out of India". A closer perusal of paragraph 91 of the said judgment on which reliance was placed would h...
Dr. Indira Saranath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: (2008)1STJ194NULL
1. In this O.A. the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the orders of the official respondents dated 06.12.2006 and 08.12.2006 promoting private respondent Nos. 3 to 9, along with a direction to the official respondents to promote the applicant as Chief Medical Director (CMD, for short) in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG, for short), with consequential benefits.2. The bare facts of the case are that the applicant was recruited to Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS, for short) in the year 1972. She was appointed as AMO, ADMO and then as DM0. She was promoted in the year 2002 to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG, for short) w.e.f.20.10.2000. The next higher grade is CMD (HAG), for promotion to which she is eligible. However, the official respondents issued two promotion lists on 06.12.2006 in which allegedly certain juniors of the applicant were promoted as CMD (HAG) and some others were appointed as CMD (SAG), while the applicant was overlooked. Hence the O.A.3. To...
Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Niranjan Singh Tyagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi264
ORDERJ.M. Malik, J.1. Counsel for the parties heard.Counsel for the appellant points out that in view of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the appellant has failed to aver and prove that 'he has performed or always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms of the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant'. He vehemently argued that the plaint is conspicuously silent on this point. He raised no other argument.2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has pointed out that he has al ready paid the entire money vide receipt Ex. PW1/3 and the respondent has also proved GP Ex. PW1/1, agreement to sell Ex. PW1/ 2 and registered Will Ex. PW1/4, which clearly go to show that the property already stands sold to the respondent for which the entire amount has been paid. Counsel for the respondent submits that he had per formed the entire part of his contract and nothing rema...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kiran Securities P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR48(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The tax effect in this case is hardly Rs. 86,000/-.2. Our attention has been drawn to Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes). This Instruction pertains to monetary limits for filing departmental appeals/references before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court. The Instruction also concerns measures for reducing litigation.3. It has been mentioned in the Instruction that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has decided that appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds the revised monetary limits which, in respect of appeals filed in the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is Rs. 2 lakhs. It has also been mentioned in the Instruction that the monetary limits would apply with reference to each case taken singly. This has been clarified as follows:In other words, in group cases, each c...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »