Delhi Court October 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.
international Land Dev. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN299(Delhi)
ORDER1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.WP(C) No. 7600/2008 & CM No. 14690/2008,WP(C) No. 7602/2008 & CM No. J 4693/2008,WP(C)No. 7605/2008 & CM No. 14699/2008,WP(C)No. 7606/2008 & CM No. 14701/2008,WP(C)No. 7607/2008 & CM No. 14703/2008,WP(C) No. 7608/2008 & CM No. 14705/2008,WP(C) No. 7609/2008 & CM No. 14707/2008, andWP(C) No. 7610/2008 & CM No. 14709/2008.These writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 13-10-2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi purportedly under Section 28IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). By virtue of the said order, various movable and immovable properties said to belong to the petitioners have been put under provisional attachments for a period of six months. In the order, it is indicated that assessments under Section 153A of the said Act for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2006-07 are pending. It is further indicated that a perusal of the information gathered...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhartesh Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: [2009]310ITR82(Delhi); [2009]176TAXMAN204(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Tribunal') in ITA/762/Del/2006 pertaining to assessment year 1995-96.1.1 The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the assessee should be permitted to set off brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 50,95,247/-, in respect of, sale and purchase of shares, pertaining to assessment years 1994-95 against income of assessment year 1995-96 assessed at Rs. 33,20,000/- under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer. 1.2 The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 21.3. 2005, passed on remand, has disallowed the set off on the ground that the income earned by the assessee in assessment year 1995-96 is income in the nature of business income arising from sale and purchase of shares, as aga...
international Film Distributors Vs. Shri Rishi Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: LC2009(2)108
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant's (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC being I.A. No. 8262/2000 seeking return of the plaint to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff) to be presented in the court having proper jurisdiction was dismissed and plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being I.A. No. 7236/2000 seeking injunction restraining the Defendant, its employees, agents and representatives from in any manner interfering in the negative rights, sole and exclusive commercial and non-commercial video rights in all formats, including CVD, DVD, satellite and television rights (both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial), cable T.V. rights, pay T.V. rights and the available theatrical rights for all India and overseas territories i.e. the entire world includ...
Siel Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prime Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR124(Delhi); 155(2008)DLT250; 2008(106)DRJ741
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This common order would dispose of two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter called the Act) preferred by M/s. SIEL Ltd. and Anr. (hereafter referred to as SIEL or as the petitioner) being OMP No. 419/2005 and M/s. Prime Industries Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the claimant or Prime Industries as the case may be) being OMP 468/2006.2. The brief facts necessary to decide the case are that SIEL entered into an agreement (referred to as the MoU) on 10.6.1994. It is not disputed that the SIEL is a manufacturer of Vanaspati and Vegetable oil and markets its products in various brands such as Rath, Panghat, Roshni and Palki for Vanaspati and Vegetable oil.3. The MoU was expressed as being valid for two years with a stipulation for renewal, for a further period through consent of parties; it could be terminated by either party giving notice, in writing. SIEL placed orders on the claimant to the extent of 1,562.975 MTs till ...
Ram Nath Suraj Singh Rishi Kum Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT41
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Respondent No. 2, Punjab National Bank is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the premises bearing No. K-16, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001. It appears that respondent No. 2 made an application to the NDMC on 9.2.2007 along with a forwarding application dated 9.2.2007 intimating the interior works which it proposed to carry out in the said premises. Punjab National Bank sought the sanction/permission of the NDMC to carry out various works. The application form as filled by respondent No. 2 pertained to 'Additions and Alterations/Revised/Revalidation/New Scheme/Completion Certificate....' The list of works that the respondent No. 2 proposed to carry out as enclosed with the application were as follows:List of works to be carried out at proposed interior for PNB, International Services Branch at K-16, Connaught Circus, New DelhiI Furnishing1. Wooden Low ht partition upto 4'-6''.2. Wooden Full ht partition upto 7'-6'.3. Wooden work stations.4. Wooden furniture....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Japan Airlines Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN188(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Admit.2. The following substantial questions of law arise for our consideration:1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the landing/parking charges paid by the assessee to the Airports Authority of India were payments for a contract of work under Section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and not in the nature of rent as per Section 194-I of the said Act?2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the respondent was not an assessee in default in respect of payments of landing/parking charges to the Airports Authority of India under Section 194-I of the said Act?3. The filing of the paper books is dispensed with. The appeal is taken up for hearing straightaway because this court already has the benefit of the decision in the case of United Airlines v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Ors. : [2006]287ITR281(Delhi) where this very issue arose for consideration. In the said decision, the quest...
Umesh Mediratta and anr. Vs. State Bank of Indore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ745
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiffs with respect to the portion of the basement and the portion of the ground floor of property No. L-7, Green Park Extension Market, New Delhi. The plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 claim to be entitled to separate portions of the basement and the ground floor let out to the defendant, hence four separate registered lease deeds, all identical in terms, were executed i.e., two of the plaintiff No. 1 with the defendant with respect to his share of the basement and the ground floor and two of the plaintiff No. 2 with the defendant of her share of the basement and the ground floor. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 31,07,875/- on the ground:(a) that the leases after the expiry of period of three years were renewable for further two periods of three years each at an increased rent of 25% on the last paid rent;(b) that the total rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for the first term o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)509
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dt. 24th Aug., 2007 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4390/Del/2004 relating to the asst. yr. 2003-04.2. The sole issue for consideration is whether the transactions between the assessee and its suppliers are in the nature of works contract or sale of goods simplicitor this issue arises in the backed of Section 194C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). If the nature of the transaction is that of a works contract, the tax would have had to be deducted at source under Section 194C of the said Act. Since the assessee did not do so, it would then be an assessee-in-default in view of the provisions of Section 201(1) of the said Act and would also be liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) thereof. We note that the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have both returned finding of fact to the effect that the dealings between the assessee and its suppliers were on principal to principal basis and did not...
Asha Soni Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ502
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Plaintiff has sued for recovery of Rs. 24,88,763/- being the balance of Rs. 32,28,530/- claimed by the Plaintiff from the Defendant under a policy against the risk of fire taken from the Defendant. The Plaintiff also claims pendente lite and future interest. On the defences raised in the written statement (to which replication was filed), the following issues were struck on 25th August, 1999.(1) Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and maintain the present suit? OPD(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Punjab National Bank as a party, if so, its effect? OPD(3) Whether the payment of Rs. 7,11,237/- made by Defendant No. 1 under the policy of insurance was in full and final settlement of the claim of the Plaintiff? OPD(4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the suit or any other amount? OPP(5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP(6) Relief.2. The Plain...
Kailashpati Steel Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Steel Authority of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ532
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned single Judge on Interim Applications taken out by the defendants (appellants herein) in a summary suit for leave to defend, by which the learned single Judge granted leave to the defendants to appear and defend the suit on their depositing Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore).2. The present suit has been filed by the respondent herein under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,22,47,516/-, which had been issued by the defendant No. 1 i.e. appellant No. 1, of whom the defendant No. 2 i.e. appellant No. 2 was the authorised signatory being one of the Directors. The said cheque having been received by the respondent was presented for payment but the same could not be realised on account of the fact that the appellants had issued a stop payment instruction. It is an admitted position that the cheque was issued and that the stop payment instruction was also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »