Delhi Court July 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.
Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)1
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned GIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dt. 9th Nov., 2004 for asst. yr. 1997-98.The assessee has taken as many as three grounds in this appeal. These grounds are as under: 1. That the order passed by the CIT(A)-XV dt. 9th Nov., 2004 is bad in law and be cancelled. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in treating reopening by AO under Section 148 after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year as valid even though all details as sought by the AO were submitted and scrutinized by him at the time of assessment under Section 143(3). On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned AO may kindly be directed that proceeding initiated under Section 148 and the assessment so passed under Section 147/143(3) being bad in law and absolutely illegal be quashed in toto. 3. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 75,9...
income Tax Officer Vs. Mokul Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)445
1. This is an appeal filed by the AO and is directed against the order dt. 19th Sept., 2005 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 2002-03.2. In the first ground of appeal, the AO is aggrieved that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,36,210 on account of expenses claimed during the year, when no business was conducted by the assessee during the relevant previous year.3. The material facts of the case are like this. The assessee is a domestic company and, in the relevant previous year, it had income only from interest and dividend. In the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that no business activities were carried out by the assessee. He thus required the assessee to show cause as to "why not the expenses of the assessee be disallowed as there was no business activity during the year" and "the income earned be brought to tax". The assessee submitted that the expenses i...
Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Delhi)994
1. The short issue that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee was required to deduct tax at source, under Section 194C of the IT Act, in respect of purchases of products, which are made to the specifications of the assessee by the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). The assessment year involved is 2004-05 and the impugned order of the CIT(A) is passed in the matter of order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section 194C of the Act.2. Briefly, the material facts. The assessee is a well known name in the consumer electronic goods and home appliances etc. in the sense its brand 'whirlpool' has a certain brand image and recognition. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of consumer electronics and home appliances, such as air conditioners, washing machines and refrigerators. In the relevant previous year, the assessee did not manufacture any of these products on its own a...
Gaurav Khullar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)914
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dt. 13th July, 2005 for the asst. yr. 2002-03, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. The impugned order of the learned AO is bad in law, is devoid of jurisdiction, is arbitrary, based on conjectures and surmises, passed without application of mind, without granting proper opportunity to defend and without following the proper legal procedures against the principles of natural justice. As such, the order is null and void ab initio. 2. The order is against the provisions of the Act and the appellant denies his liability to tax as determined and computed by the learned AO and the manner in which it has been so determined or computed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the legal validity of the impugned order, whether in specific terms or by implication. 3. The learned AO has erred in law and on ...
Mmtc Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)600
1. The short issue that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in holding that his order dt.22nd July, 2004 was vitiated by mistake apparent on record to the extent that assessee was entitled to the benefit of set off of accumulated losses and depreciation, amounting to Rs. 663.12 lakhs, in the asst. yr. 1996-97, whereas, in the order dt. 22nd July, 2004, it was held by the CIT(A) that the assessee was entitled to the said benefit in the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The assessee is a public sector undertaking, fully owned by the Government of India, and has duly obtained the clearance of the Committee on Disputes (Cabinet Secretariat), in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of ONGC v. CCE (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 3. In order to properly appreciate the controversy requiring our adjudication, it is necessary to take a look at the relevant material facts. A scheme of amalgamation between the assessee and the Mica Trading Company L...
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Lanco Construction Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR194(Delhi); 2007(97)DRJ213
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act) praying for the setting aside of the award dated 07.05.1998 published by the respondent No. 2 (Mr. H.C. Bhardwaj) who was the sole arbitrator.2. The applicant, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) called for bids for the work of Coffer Dam, Package B for quarrying, transporting and placement of shell materials. The bids were received by THDC on 20.01.1994. Lanco Construction Limited (LCL) (respondent No. 1 herein) was one of the parties who responded to the tender. LCL's bid was accepted by THDC. A letter of Intent was issued to LCL by THDC on 10.11.1994. Thereafter, certain other letters were issued. The formal contract was entered into between the parties on 05.01.1995 for initial amount of Rs. 8.38 crores. The schedule of items covered under the contract included item 3 which was as under:3. Quarrying from Dobata borrow area, ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Stephen Andreas Hofman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ410
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision Petition 844/2005 as well as the Criminal Appeal 671/2006. Both, the revision petition and the appeal, have been filed on behalf of the Union of India. The revision petition has been filed in respect of the order on charge dated 19.09.2005 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi whereby he came to the conclusion that the recovery of the contraband was of a small quantity and that the case was triable by a Magistrate. Accordingly, he sent the file to the learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for trial and disposal of the case as per law. The appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2005 as also the order on sentence of the same date passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi.2. A few important facts need to be stated at the outset. After the passing of the order on charge dated 19.09.2005 (which is the subject matter of the revision petition), the matter was heard and tried by the learned ACM...
Shri Ram Niwas Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ567
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The matter has been heard in detail. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:(i) To pass an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing/setting aside the impugned notification dated 31.1.2007 bearing No.F-7(21)/2005/L&B;/LA/MRTC/W/16141 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and any other subsequent acquisition notification and or proceedings and Rehabilitation Policy.(ii) To direct the respondents to apply the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 for any proposed and present above acquisition for Metro Station Mundka, Delhi or any other work or construction for Metro in Delhi.(iii) To declare provisions of The Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 as ultra virus of the Constitution of India.(iv) To pass an appropriate writ order or direction where by directing respondents to have a record survey and construct of Metro Rail alignment projection on the vacant land which are available near the land of the Petitioner and i...
Baleshwar Gehlot and anr. Vs. Siri Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ306
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant party impugning the judgment and or order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 29.08.1997 in Session Case No. 42/1993, whereby respondent Nos. 1-4 who were all accused, have been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The case arises from FIR No. 248/1992 registered under Section 302/307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') registered at Police Station Tuglak Road.2. On behalf of the petitioners, it was pointed out that a letter dated 26.11.1997 was received by the petitioner No. 1 from the Government of NCT in connection with filing of an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 29.08.1997. In that letter the petitioner No. 1 had been informed that the Government of NCT of Delhi had decided to file an appeal against the said judgment and the record of the case had been forwarded to the concerned SDM for filing the appeal throug...
Rajeev Tandon Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)272; [2007]294ITR488(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 8th September, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA No. 3495(Del)/2004 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessed claims to have received two gifts from abroad. One gift was from Mr. P.B. Bhardwaj and was of an amount of Rs. 30,04,300/- while the second gift was from Mr. Surender Khoka of an amount of Rs. 4,61,942/-. The assessed produced documentation to show the creditworthiness of both the donors but the Assessing Officer took the view that the gifts were bogus and that the assessed had merely routed his own money through these persons to increase his capital for purchasing a house. The alleged gifts were given to the assessed by persons who were not related to him in any manner and were not given to him for any particular reason except because he needed the money to purchase a house and these donors wanted to help him.3. The assessed preferred an appeal before the Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »