Delhi Court January 2008 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.
Comet Handicrafts Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)124
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 1st Sept., 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 taken : That the learned Asstt. C1T-II, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as learned AO') as well as the learned CIT(A), Bareilly [hereinafter referred to as 'learned CIT(A)'] both have grossly erred in law vis-avis the facts and features of the case of the appellant/assessee, while issuing orders Under Section 143(3) dt. 14th Feb., 2005 and Under Section 250 dt. 1st Sept., 2005 (served on 5th Oct., 2005 to the appellant/assessee) wherein following disallowances have been made and upheld respectively by the aforesaid authorities disregarding/defying the relevant rulings of the higher appellate authorities and of High Courts and the Supreme Court. (1) Telephone expenses by Rs. 39,989 (assuming 10 per cent on ad hoc basis of total/actual such expenses) a...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khanna and Anndhanam
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)663
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, dt. 9th May, 2001.2. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the amount of Rs. 1,15,70,000 received by the assessee is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt chargeable to tax.3. The assessee herein is a firm of chartered accountants carrying on profession as such. During the year the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 1,15,70,000 in the capital account of the partners. This payment is stated to be received from Deloitte Touche Tohmatu International (DTTI). It was stated that the receipt is not taxable in its hand as it is capital receipt. The AO held the same as revenue receipt.4. Facts of this case are that Deloittee Touche Tohmatsu International (DTTI) is said to be one of the leading accounting firms in the world established under Swiss Verein engaged in the practice of public accountancy in various countries. The Verein consists of members that are professional firms and are engaged i...
Mr. K.K. Khullar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)304ITR295(Delhi)
1. The assessee has taken eight grounds in the appeal. These grounds involve two issues, namely, whether the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in -(i) holding that the advance fee recovered from the clients was the income of the assessee, and (ii) not following the principle of consistency in not assessing such advance as income? 1.1 In respect of these substantive grounds, it is mentioned that the assessee had been following cash system of accounting year after year and the same was done in this year. Under this system, income is to be recognized in the books on receipt basis. The learned CIT(A) wrongly held that the assessee was following hybrid system of accounting. The system adopted by the assessee was adopted in the assessments for assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, which should have been accepted by him. The system adopted by the assessee does not cause any loss of revenue as true and real income was declared. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ass...
Genesis Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)385
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, dt. 30th Jan., 2006 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 4,22,624 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c).2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this-appeal are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by the AO under Section 143(3) making, inter alia, the following additions to the income returned by the assessee:Disallowance of foreign tour and travel expenses 2,37,952Disallowance on account of commission expenses 8,30,630 ___________ 3. The aforesaid additions made by the AO were challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and since there was no compliance from the assessee's side to the notices of hearing issued by him during the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby sustaining the aforesaid additions made by the AO. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under Section 271(...
Indian National Football Club and ors. Vs. Delhi Soccer Association an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT588
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 14896/20071. Plaintiff No. 1 is a Football Club and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the players registered with plaintiff No. 1 in terms of the Rules of Delhi Soccer Association. Defendant No. 1 is Delhi Soccer Association and defendant No. 2 is its Secretary. Plaintiff No. 1 has filed this suit alleging therein that its two registered players viz plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have been wrongly banned by defendant No. 1 from playing on behalf of the Club despite the fact that defendants No. 2 and 3 were duly registered as per rules as the professional players of plaintiff No. 1 with defendant No. 1. A prayer is made that the defendant No. 1 be injuncted from banning plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 from playing football for plaintiff No. 1.2. The instant application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been moved by the plaintiffs for grant of ad-interim injunction. The reply to the application has been filed by the defendants.3. Brief facts relevant ...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Siddharth Nagpal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT128
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that properties bearing No. J-3(B) and J-3(C), Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi were allotted to Shri Jairam Dass, grandfather of the respondent herein by virtue of perpetual lease deed dated 18th February, 1971. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent that after the demise of Shri Jairam Dass, rights in the property devolved upon the respondent herein and the property was mutated in his name in 1983, under the guardianship of his father, as the respondent herein was minor at that time. It is further stated that some construction work was carried out on plot bearing No.J-3(B) whereas no construction was carried out on plot bearing No.J-3(C). On attainment of majority, when the respondent was in a position to carry o...
Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Valentine Maritime (Mauritius) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ180
G.S. Sistani, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking, inter alia, an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from selling, parting with possession, creating any change or removing/shipping out of India, its plant, machinery and other equipment from the local limits of this Court. This Court vide orders dated 13.5.2005 and 18.5.2005 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the petitioner.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the lis between the parties and eventually the present petition, may first be noticed.3. The petitioner, namely, Punj Lloyd Ltd., is a company registered in India, having its registered office at New Delhi. The respondent namely, Valentine Maritime (Mauritius) Ltd., is a Mauritian company having its Gulf representative office at Abu Dhabi. The respondent on 1.12.2003, had entered into a contract with Gujarat Adani Port Ltd. (GAPL) whereunder the respondent was required t...
Sms Infrastructure Limited Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT232
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent-NDMC has floated tenders for developing 'Multi Level Parking-cum-Commercial Complex' at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi. Bids from eligible persons are invited thereby. These bids are in the form of 'Request for Proposal' (RFP). Liberty is given to the bidders to opt for 'Fully Automatic Parking System' or 'Semi Automatic Parking System' or 'Manual System'. The main purpose of the project is to achieve maximum ``Net Equivalent Car Space' (ECS). RFP envisages proposal evaluation in three stages. In stage one the proposal is to be first checked for responsiveness with the requirement of the RFP with reference to 'other submissions of the proposal' submitted by the bidders. In the second stage technical evaluation of the bids is to be undertaken. This evaluation is to be done only in respect of those bidders whose 'other submissions' qua stage one are found to meet the requirements of the RFP i.e. stage one is found to be responsive in terms of the requir...
Kanshi Ram (Deceased) through his LR's. Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT472
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Following substantial question of law is framed for consideration in the present appeal:Whether on the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record the view taken by the Courts below is legal and valid?2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge dismissing the suit filed by the appellant was affirmed.3. Very briefly, admitted facts as culled out from the impugned judgment as also from the records before this Court are that on 6.5.1961 appellant Kanshi Ram was admitted as a member of Panch Shila Cooperative House Building Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society), a Society registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 as extended to Delhi.4. The Society acquired land in Village Shahpur Jat and developed the same into a residential colony 'Panch Shila Park'. A formal lease d...
Hargreaves Investments Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Authority for Industrial ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT175
A.K. Sikri , J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24th September 2007 passed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (AAIFR) in Appeal No. 194 of 2002 along with MA No. 116/2007 dated 24th September 2007 and the order dated 10th October 2006 passed in MA No. 210/2006. The effect of these orders is that the land of the Respondent No. 3 Sick Company admeasuring about 205 Acres in Khapoli, Maharashtra as been permitted to be sold to Respondent No. 5 for an amount of Rs. 18 crores, and the application of the petitioner for recall of the said permission has been dismissed. The Petitioner also seeks direction to the AAIFR to accept the bid of Rs. 28 crore or in the alternative direct the sale of the said land at Khapoli in District Raigarh, Maharashtra to be carried out in transparent manner by following the procedure prescribed by law.2.T...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »