Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhwan Bashyam

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)335; [2009]312ITR90(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 22nd Sept., 2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' in ITA No. 4618/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. M/s Marubeni Corporation had filed a return purportedly as the agent of the assessed. The return was filed on 24th June, 1996. A notice was issued to the assessed under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 14th Jan., 2000 and it was served on the assessed on 31st Jan., 2000. According to the assessed, the notice was time-barred in view of the provisions of Section 149(3) of the Act and the notice should have been served upon the assessed on or before 31st March, 1999.3. It appears that this contention was not urged by the assessed before the AO or before the CIT(A) but it was urged as an additional ground before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the application filed by the assessed for urging the additional ground and that application was allowed by an order dt 28th Aug., 2006. Against that order, t...

Urmila Punera and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ624

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent State of Maharashtra to give them alternative accommodation in 'A' Block in Sirmur Plot.2. A working women's Hostel known as Western House was located in four buildings in Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. It is part of an property known as Sermur. In 1964, the Central Government, acting through the Ministry of Urban Development took possession of the property and continued to manage the Hostel. The petitioners claim to be residents as licensees in those premises. On 29.12.1998 the President of India as Lesser permitted handing over of the possession of the plot, which apparently originally belong to the State of Maharashtra. The letter also contained a condition that possession would be handed over to the Government of Maharashtra only after relocation of the occupants at the cost of the State Government and that the CPWD/Directorate would take all steps to evict all those, if necessary, while relocating them els...

State Bank of India Vs. Jagat Parkash Rana

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of having wrongly dishonoured the cheque of the respondent due to insufficient fund, the appellant-Bank has been vide impugned order dated 29.7.2005, passed by the District Forum directed to pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation to the respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order were that he deposited Rs. 10,000 in his account on 17.2.2003 and he was expecting a cheque of Rs. 10,550 to be presented in his account and after deposit of the cash of Rs. 10,000 on 17.2.2003 the balance in the account of the respondent stood at Rs. 15,657.79. He approached the bank and was told at about 3.30 p.m. that the cheque of Rs. 10,550 has been returned back unpaid and further deduction of Rs. 50 has been made from his account. He has prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation with interest at the rate...

Neeraj Sharma S/O V.P. Sharma, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Neeraj Sharma and three others, applicants, through present Transferred Application which has come on transfer to this Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore/grant the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 to them as revised on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and incorporated in Part B of the First Schedule of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1996. In consequence of issuance of the writ in the manner mentioned above, the applicants seek a direction to be issued to the respondents to pay to them arrears of pay in the revised scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1996. Applicants had initially filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18847-50 of 2006 before the Delhi High Court, which vide order dated 26.9.2007 has been transferred to this Tribunal for disposal.2. Respondents hav...

Sanjay Pratap Singh S/O M.P. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sanjay Pratap Singh, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) Cadre, applicant herein, takes strong exception to the chargesheet dated 2.2.2006 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on variety of grounds, in this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Brief facts, as may need necessary mention for the limited relief, however, as prayed at this stage, reveal that the applicant from time to time has been posted at Delhi.He had also been transferred to other places like Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep. The impugned chargesheet, however, pertains to a period when the applicant was posted at New Delhi. It is the case of applicant that he was posted as Project Director, Urban Basic Services under the Government of NCT of Delhi, and remained on the aforesaid post till 20.2.1998 whereafter he was relieved to join as Special Commissi...

Asia Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the Order dt. 19.3.2004 of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi relating to the A.Y. 2001-2002.2. The facts and circumstances giving raise to the present appeal are as follows. The assessee is a company. It is in the business of operation of air craft for carriage of passengers. It possesses the necessary certificate granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation under the Air Crafts Act, 1934 to operate the air craft. The permission so granted specifically mentions that the assessee shall comply with the provisions of the Air Craft Act, 1934, Air craft Rules, 1937 and orders, directions, requirements issued under the aforesaid Act and rules from time to time. The assessee purchased a Second hand Cessna citation air craft in September, 1997.3. The assessee filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2001-2002 declaring a loss of Rs. 49,21,329/=. In arriving at this loss the assessee had made deduction of Rs. 39,67,99/= as provision for overhauling and hot sect...

Paliwal Overseas Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)427

1. This is a miscellaneous application filed by the applicant assessee under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 stating that there is a mistake apparent on record in the order dt. 21st July, 2006 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal of the Revenue, which needs to be rectified. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the assessee has referred to para 3 of the order dt. 21st July, 2006 which reads as under: 3. When the matter came up for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the learned Counsel for the assessee Shri S.K. Goel sent a fax asking for exemption from personal appearance. However, he has referred to a fax dt. 5th May, 2006 wherein certain case law have been relied upon. One of the case law relied upon is of Lalson Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1048 : (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del)(SB) wherein the Special Bench has held that for the purposes of applying Expln. (baa) below Section 80HHC(4B) while reducing 90 per cent of receipt by w...

Shri Rajesh Kumar Gulati S/O Late Shri Surajbhan Gulati Vs. National A ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT219

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these above mentioned petitions, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the criminal complaint cases filed under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short as Act) as well as summoning order, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.3. Respondent No. 1, herein, has filed complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act against the present petitioner and others including M/s Earthtech Enterprises Ltd., accused company, on the allegations that respondent No. 1 is a cooperative society duly registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and is engaged in the business of marketing of agricultural products and Nafed financial activities is the consonance of co- oper...

Hawkins Cookers Limited Vs. Murugan Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(1)128; 2008(36)PTC290(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff is an existing Public Limited Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 and has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc. against the sole defendant.2. The plaintiff claims to be a reputed and established company inter alias engaged in the manufacture of pressure cookers and parts thereof under the trademark HAWKINS for the last 30 years. The name of the plaintiff company was changed from M/s Pressure Cookers and Appliances Limited to the present name of M/s Hawkins Cookers Limited in the year 1986. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark HAWKINS from 06.05.1957 in Class 21 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in respect of pressure cookers and parts thereof. The trademark registration No. 179714 is for HAWKINS UNIVERSAL but the mark registered is HAWKINS and the word UNIVERSAL is subject to disclaimer. T...

Dalmia Dairy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)340

ORDER1. In these references pertaining to the asst. yr. 1980-81, the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income by way of outstanding price, contractual interest and interest as per the awards up to 20th July, 1977 arose in the asst. yr. 1978-79 and thereforee the question of taxability of the amount computed on that basis could not arise for consideration in the asst. yr. 1980-81 in question?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was relevant or necessary for the Tribunal while considering the appeals for the asst. yr. 1980-81 to give a finding that income by way of outstanding price, contractual interest and interest as per the awards up to 20th July, 1977 arose in the asst. yr. 1978-79?2. Insofar as the second question is concerned, learned Counsel for the assessed, at whose instance the question is referred to us, do...