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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunita Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)62; [2007]293ITR292(Delhi)
ORDER1. The assessed {sic-Revenue) is aggrieved by an order dt. 20th Oct., 2004, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, in IT(SS)A No. 321/Del/2002 relevant for the block assessment period 1st April, 1986, to 31st March, 1997.2. It appears that a search and seizure operation was conducted in respect of the premises of the assessed and some material was allegedly seized on the basis of which the AO came to the conclusion that the assessed had certain undisclosed income. The AO took the view that the assessed was unable to explain the source of the income and, thereforee, the amount was added to her income as undisclosed income.3. When the matter came up before the Tribunal in appeal, the Tribunal recorded that the Panchnama reveals that what was seized was the regular books of account of the assessed. Other than that 'there is no other material or document found in the course of search which warranted embarking upon an enquiry by the AO in a block assessment'. In other word...
SachIn Vs. State (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3947
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction under Sections 302/201 IPC vide judgment dated 8-5-06 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 42/06 arising out of FIR No. 28/03 registered at Uttam Nagar police station as also the order of the same date whereby the trial Court sentenced the appellant - accused to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for his conviction under Section 302 IPC and RI for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for his conviction under Section 201 IPC.2. The appellant - accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC along with one Mukesh who has since been acquitted by the trial Court.3. The prosecution case as noticed by the learned Trial Judge in para No. 1 of the impugned judgment is as follow...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT368
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') vide its impugned order dated 28th October, 2005 passed in ITA No. 800/Del/2005 for the assessment year 2001-2002 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 8,80,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act').2. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.3. The assessed in the present case filed its return on 31st October, 2001 declaring a loss of Rs. 23,05,096/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and assessment was made at the loss of Rs. 85,259/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the loss claimed by the assessed was speculative in nature which could be allowed to be adjusted against speculative income only and as the income was assessed at a loss, the loss shown by the a...
Parveen Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ433
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. Petitioner has assailed the order and judgment dated 26.07.2005 in O.A. No 2320/04 and order dated 01.08.2006 in RA NO. 207/2005 in the above-mentioned O.A. passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. He has further sought quashing and setting aside of orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority passed against him. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has further prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including pay, salary, seniority, increments, promotions etc. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner joined the Delhi Police as Constable in the year 1998. He claims to have served the department with sincerity and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. However, on 5.9.2003, he was arrested for alleged involvement in several criminal cases. FIRs in various police stations were registered against him. He was booked under various provisions of I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: [2009]310ITR121(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'the Tribunal'), vide its impugned order dated October 28, 2005, passed in ITA No. 800/Del/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 8,80,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'the Act').2. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.3. The assessee in the present case filed its return on October 31, 2001, declaring a loss of Rs. 23,05,096. The return was selected for scrutiny and assessment was made at the loss of Rs. 85,259. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the loss claimed by the assessee was speculative in nature which could be allowed to be adjusted against speculative income only and as the income was assessed at a loss, the loss shown by th...
Cit Vs. Dewan Steels Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR161(Delhi)
ORDERCM No. 8352/20071. Heard learned Counsel for the revenue.2. Although there is some delay in re-filing the appeal, we condone it. The application is allowed.CM stands disposed of.ITA No. 559/20073. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 10-3-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch 'A', New Delhi in ITA No. 398/Del/2000 and CO No. 239/Delhi/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.4. The assessed had adopted the cost method for valuation of closing stock. The assessing officer held that the assessed could not explain the basis on which this method was adopted and, thereforee, made certain additions.5. In appeal, both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessed had been following the same method of stock valuation for the last few previous years and that that method had been accepted by the revenue. It was found that there was no change in the method adopted by the assessed and, thereforee, the assess...
Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Finolux Auto Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi268; LC2007(3)79; 2007(35)PTC680(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Before we take note of the controversy involved in this appeal and address the same, it would be appropriate to have stock of the factual background in which the said controversy has arisen.2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') has filed suit CS (OS) No. 2347/2000 on the Original Side of this Court for perpetual injunction, infringement of trademark and trade-name, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, etc. against the respondent who is the defendant in the said suit (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant'). The plaintiff is stated to be the owner of trademark FINOLEX and is aggrieved by the user of trademark FINOLUX, mark adopted by the defendant. Along with the main suit, the appellant also filed is No. 10903/2000 in which the appellant was granted ex-parte ad interim injunction. After receiving the summons, the defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement and reply. The case was thereafter adjou...
Mr. Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. Venus Sugar Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CompLJ283(Del); [2008]84SCL75(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff, erstwhile director of defendant No. 1, has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking a decree whereby the removal of the plaintiff as director of defendant No. 1/company be restrained and it be declared that the plaintiff is a director of defendant No. 1 Company. 2. The plaintiff claims to be a businessman and an industrialist and states that he was a co-promoter and an original investor in the shares of defendant No. 1/company. 3. Defendant No. 1 is a public limited company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 ('the said Act' for short) incorporated on 16.01.1991 with the primary object of setting up of project for the manufacture of white crystal sugar. The certificate of commencement of business was obtained by the defendant No. 1/company on 13.05.1991. Defendant No. 2 is the Managing Director of the company and the other defendants except defendant No. 12 are the Directors of the defendant No. 1/company. 4. ...
Dev SarIn Vs. Dcm Financial Services Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC300
ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.Crl. M.C. No. 1263/2007 & Crl. M. No. 4437/2007:1. Heard.2. The petitioner is an accused facing trial in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent No. 1. On respondent No. 1 concluding its evidence and statement of the petitioner being recorded under Section 281, Cr.P.C. the matter was posted for the first time for defense evidence on 16th January, 2006. No evidence was, however, produced by the petitioner on that day and the matter was thus adjourned to 25th March, 2006. On the adjourned date again there was no evidence from the side of the petitioner and the case was thus adjourned to 5th July, 2006, making it clear that it would be last and final opportunity. The petitioner however again did not produce his defense evidence on 5th July, 2007, which occasioned yet another adjournment. The matter was eventually posted for 26th September, 2006 on payment of cost of Rs. 200/- with the condition that it would be last opportunit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lubtec India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR175(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated May 19, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' D', IT(SS)A. No. 126 (Delhi) of 2000 relevant for the block period April 1, 1988, to April 21, 1998. During the course of search and seizure operations in the premises of the assessee, the Revenue recovered two sheets of paper marked as annexure A-72 in which certain items were jotted down in pencil such as dinner, gift, projector, slide projector, etc., and some figures were noted against of each item. Some of the items in those two sheets related to advertisements in newspapers, magazines and hoardings, etc.2. According to the Revenue, the assessee had incurred expenditure, as mentioned in those two pages, and was thereafter asked to explain the source of the amount. In response, the assessee denied having incurred the expenditure. It was submitted by the assessee that it did not have the amount of money reflected in those two sheets and was incapable of spending the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »