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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Narender Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT160; [2007(115)FLR1148]
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. These 31 petitions are filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short 'Corporation') assailing the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'Act'). Since these petitions raise a common question of law in respect of applicability of the Act to the employees of the Corporation, I propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that in similar matters the orders passed by this Court have been carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. However, she did not furnish any details in relation to the Special Leave Petition purportedly filed before the Supreme Court. Nor did counsel state that the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the orders of this Court passed in similar matters. Therefore, in view of the fact that this issue is no longer res integra, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, cited herein ...
Director of Income Tax Vs. Klm Royal Dutch Airlines
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)268; [2009]178TAXMAN291(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CM No. 14909 of 2008 in IT Appeal No. 1241 of 2008Allowed subject to all just exceptions.IT Appeal Nos. 1241 and 1245 of 20081. These appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 arise out of the common order dt. 31st March, 2008 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 96-97/Del/2002 relating to the asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98.2. The limited question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the recovery/adjustment of rent from CSC (P) Ltd. by the assessee (KLM) was an income chargeable to tax in India. This question arose in the backdrop of Articles 6 and 8 of the DTAA between India and the Netherlands. There is no dispute that the assessee is a company incorporated in the Netherlands and its main activity is operation of aircrafts in international traffic both for transport of passengers as well as of cargo handling. There is also no dispute that the profits from the international traffic would be taxable in the Netherlands, being the place of...
Lt. Cdr., M.P. Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT41
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner joined Indian Navy as Air Artificer Sailor in November, 1968 and was commissioned as an officer on 1.4.1981. He superannuated on 30.09.2000. Prior to superannuation he was posted as Deputy Controller of Procurement (Central Purchase/Direct Purchase) in the Material Organization, Mumbai. By virtue of an agreement entered into by him with the Central Government, he was re-employed in the Indian Navy soon after his retirement i.e., w.e.f. 01.10.2000 which appointment continued till 21.5.2004. During this period also, he was posted as Deputy Controller of Procurement in Ghatkopar Mumbai and as such he was responsible for various procurement activities on behalf of Navy.2. In or around June 2003 Intelligence inputs were received by the Navy Authorities about extortion of illegal gratification by some Naval officers from the vendors for giving them contracts for supply of defence equipments. On being satisfied that the petitioner was involved in such prac...
Birkha Ram Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT707
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Agricultural land situated in Village Lado Sarai belonging to the petitioner were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the Central Government in the year, 1980 vide Award No. 36/80-81 announced on 19.6.80. Under the scheme of alternative allotment of land, the petitioner applied for allotment of a residential plot. The case of the petitioner was recommended to the DDA by the Land and Building Department of Delhi Administration vide communication dated 15.02.1984 for allotment of a residential plot. The recommendation was for allotment of an alternative plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards in South zone. On 04.06.1986, the Delhi Development Authority communicated to the petitioner that plots are not available in South zone and it had been decided to accommodate him in West zone. His consent was sought by the respondent DDA and he was required to deposit Rs. 3,000/-. The petitioner objected to being allotted land in another zone apart from South zone. He sought reconsi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagson International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN315(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-3-2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 13/D/2003 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue that is sought to be raised in the present appeal arises from the Tribunal's decision that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid.2. The Tribunal has examined the facts and circumstances of the case and has arrived at the conclusion that the re-opening of the assessment which had been done under Section 147(3) was not justified as no new material had come before the Assessing Officer which could have enabled him to have reasons to believe that any income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also noted that letter which was relied upon by the department as the new information/material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer was a letter dated 28-8-1999. The Tribunal noted that this could not constitute new information coming after the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Amusement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]310ITR281(Delhi)
I.T.A. No.718 of 20081. This appeal is directed against the Tribunal's order dated September 28, 2007, passed in I.T.A. No. 4405/Del/2005 relating to the assessment year 2002-03. The only issue that is sought to be raised is whether the payment made by the assessee to the Bijnor Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. as part of the agreement was in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The payment was made by the assessee for the advice rendered by Bijnor Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. on the materials and consumables to be applied on the steel structures of the rides and the methodology of application on site, without requiring shut down of the rides. The assessee was conducting rides at Appu Ghar at Pragati Maidan. The payment was also made for advice on application of techniques of predictive breakdowns so that the assessee can execute predictive maintenance of the structures from time to time in order to minimize the chances of unexpected breakdowns or public casualties at the ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Classic Credit Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT538; 2009(236)ELT12(Del); [2008]88SCL177(Delhi); 2009[13]STR598
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. These are appeals against the common order dated 14th January, 2008 passed by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. By that order the learned Judge, while allowing the recall application of the respondent herein, held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange whereby the Tribunal had directed pre-deposit of 50% of the demanded penalty imposed by the Special Director.2. A preliminary point was raised by the appellant herein before the learned single Judge that in view of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act'), the respondent should have filed an appeal and not the writ petition. The learned single Judge by his order dated 7th November, 2007 directed the writ petition to be treated as an appeal under Section 35 of the Act and listed before the appropriate bench.3. The respondents herein preferred CMs for recalling the order on the grou...
Smt. Dewan Kaur and anr. Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT214
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This Regular First Appeal has been filed by Smt. Dewan Kaur and her son Sh. Om Prakash, the Appellants ( who were defendants No. 2 and 4 in the trial court) against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 12th September 2001 in Suit No. 351/90 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in a suit for partition and possession of the suit property bearing No. 29, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') filed against the Appellants impleading her mother Smt. Parwati Devi (defendant No. 1 in the suit) and her other sister Smt. Bharpai who is respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 3 in the suit).2. The learned trial court by the said judgment and decree has held that the Appellant No. 1 and Respondents No. 1 and 2 have each 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property and passed a preliminary decree appointing a Local commissioner for suggesting the ways and means of partitioning the property by metes and bounds.3. The brief facts are that...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ahuja Radios
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)401; [2009]178TAXMAN52(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') pertain to the same assessee but to different assessment years. ITA 337/2002 relates to assessment year 1993-94, ITA 1127/06 relates to assessment year 1997-98, ITA 1054/06 relates to assessment year 1998-99 and ITA 289/2007 relates to the assessment year 2000-01. In all these appeals the following substantial question of law has been framed for determination:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that MODVAT credit has not to be included in the total turnover for the purposes of computing the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 19612. It is not necessary for us to set out the facts in respect of each of the assessment years. It is sufficient to note that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the said Act. The claim of deduction by the assessee was based on a computation of total turnover which did not in...
SachIn J. Joshi and anr. Vs. Lieutenant Governor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT22
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 8th April 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellants' Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8101 of 2007.2. The appellant No. 2 Asrani Inns and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., in which the appellant No. 1 holds 25.36% shares and is a Director, is in the real estate and construction business. The appellant No. 2 purchased two adjacent hotel plots measuring 7220.40 sq. mts. (plot No. 1) and 7030 sq. mts. (plot No. 2) at the Wazirpur District Centre, Delhi for Rs. 127 crores and Rs. 102.40 crores respectively in an auction held by the Respondent No. 2 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 4th May 2006. The permissible built up area or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as regards plot No. 1 was 15,500 sq. mts. and as regards plot No. 2 it was 14,500 sq. mts. Two bank guarantees in the sum of Rs. 6.53 crores for plot No. 1 and Rs. 5.12 crores for plot No. 2 were furnished by the appellants to the DDA. These bank guarantees were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »