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.
Commissioner of Customs, Icd, Tkd Vs. J.S. Gujral and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(235)ELT414(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 arise out of the common order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos. C/412-413/2007-SM(BR). The issue raised in these appeals relates to the confiscation of two cars both being Toyota Lexus LS 460 imported by the respondents from Japan. The Commissioner of Customs had, by separate adjudication orders dated 24.05.2007, confiscated the cars under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs, however, in the case of J.S. Gujral imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 4 lacs and penalty of Rs. 2 lacs whereas in the case of Mohinder Pal Singh Gujral a redemption fine of Rs. 4.5 lacs and penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed. Being aggrieved by the said confiscation orders, the respondents preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The only ground on which the confiscation was made was that the importers had not submitted Type Approval Certificate/...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.L.S. Finance Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: [2009]310ITR224(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN433(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the common order dated 15.02.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in respect of miscellaneous application Nos. 611, 612 and 613/Del/2006. The rectification applications had been filed by the assessee in respect of the tribunal's earlier common order dated 31.08.2005 under Section 254(1) of the said Act in ITA Nos. 1754, 1755/Del/2001 and ITA No. 1948/Del/2001 pertaining to the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively.2. The assessee being aggrieved by the earlier order dated 31.08.2005 preferred appeals before this Court being ITA Nos. 115/2006, 125/2006 and 129/2006 which had been admitted for hearing. However, the present appeals arise out of the said order dated 15.02.2008, whereby the assesse's rectification applications under Section 254(2) of the said Act have been allowed and the order dated 31.08.200...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dawn View Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)504; [2009]178TAXMAN15(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') is directed against the order dated 7.12.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA(SS) No. 323/Del/05 pertaining to the block period 1. 4. 1995 to 7. 3. 2002. The only issue that has been raised in this appeal pertains to the question of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BD of the said Act.2. The facts are that search and seizure operations were carried out under Section 132 of the said Act in the case of M/s Yadav and Co. In the course of the search, statements of Sh OP Yadav and Mahinder Singh Yadav were recorded wherein they stated that they had not opened or operated the bank accounts in question. By a letter dated 9. 9. 2002 the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) informed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV who apparently had jurisdiction over the present assessee that there were bogus entries in the bank accoun...
Raghubir Singh, Ex. Ad Hoc Assistant Vs. Chief Justice of Delhi High C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1091]; (2009)ILLJ718Del
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the High Court working as an ad hoc assistant, is aggrieved by the departmental proceedings initiated against him which have culminated in two punishments. The first punishment is imposed by the Order dated August 23, 1986 withholding three time scale increments with cumulative effect from August 18,1986 and the Order dated August 19, 1986 imposing punishment of dismissal from service.2. The petitioner started his career as an LDC on February 6, 1968 and earned his promotion as an ad hoc Assistant on December 17, 1979. A complaint was made by one Sh. V.B. Aggarwal, the then Assistant, on January 12, 1984 alleging that the petitioner had exhorted Mr. Laxman Dass Kondal to physically assault Mr. Aggarwal which resulted in the said assault and in view of the complaint, the then Chief Justice suspended both Sh. Raghubir Singh and Mr. Laxman Dass Kondal and directed a regular inquiry. On the same date, a complaint was also ma...
Aditya Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN66(Delhi)
1. The order impugned in these appeals is the order dated 14-9-2007 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 4308/Delhi/2003 and 4656/Delhi/2004 pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98.2. A reading of paragraph 2.2 of the impugned order indicates that the assessee had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 6-2-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in which an additional ground was raised that the assessment was bad in law as the notice under Section 143(2) had not been served within the statutory period.3. The Tribunal had admitted the said ground and restored the issue to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjudicating the said ground. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by an order dated 28-12-2004, found the claim of the assessee to be correct and held the assessment order to be a nullity. It had been contended before the Tribunal that as the assessment order had been held to be a nullity, the appeals before it had ...
The Workmen of Northern Railway Zonal Training School Vs. the Manageme ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT220; [2006(111)FLR972]
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant had raised a dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in the following terms:Whether the action of the president, Mess committee Uttar Railway zonal Training School, Chandausi Muradabad terminating the services of 25 workmen with effect from 16.8.84 is justified, If yes to what relief the workman is entitled to?Whether the service conditions of all the workers of Mess Committee should be in accordance with the service conditions of Railway workers, if yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?Whether all the workers of Mess Committee should be no (at) (sic.) par with industrial workers and given D.A. And bonus. If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?Whether the president Mess Committee is justified in compulsory (compulsorily) (sic) retiring Moti Ram, Safaiwalle, Choke Safaiwala and Roop ram Chapati man from 31st...
R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. Vs. National Projects Construction Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR167(Delhi); 155(2008)DLT715; 2008(106)DRJ516
Hima Kohli, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the objections filed by the respondent/objector under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act') against an award dated 3. 6. 1993 passed by the sole arbitrator, Shri G. K. Saxena, wherein the learned arbitrator directed the respondent/objector to pay Rs. 13,87,160/- to the petitioner/claimant in full and final settlement of all the dues and claims mentioned in its statement of claims and the counter-claims of the respondent/objector, along with the interest @ 15% per annum from 2. 7. 1993, to the actual date of payment of award or the date of decree whichever was earlier.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondent/ objector awarded a contract in favour of the petitioner/claimant for work of construction of four food grains godowns of total capacity of 19,580 metric tones with ancillary buildings including canteen block, lavatory block and isolation shed, which were to be constructed at Partapur a...
R.N. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR147(Delhi); 155(2008)DLT737
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter alia for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is in the work of construction and entered into an agreement with the respondent for execution of construction of office building for NATP at CTP Complex, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012 on a tendered amount of Rs. 1,63,85,453. As per the agreement the date of commencement of the work was 26.04.2003 and the date of completion was 25.10.2003. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner started and completed the work on 08.03.2004, to the satisfaction of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a statement of claim to the respondent, vide letter dated 26.08.2005, claiming a sum of Rs. 8,66,550. It is stated that despite the aforesaid demand, the respondent did no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tulip Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN182(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 5810/Delhi/1998 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.2. The learned Counsel for the revenue challenged the said order of the Tribunal on four issues. The first issue was with relation to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lakhs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292 by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act. The third issue relates to the disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs in respect of cast iron moulds. The disallowance has been set aside...
Jagdish Gandhi and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT64
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order-dated 18.05.2007, for the issuance of appropriate orders and to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter to be referred as 'SDM'). Operative part of the order reads as under:In view of the above discussion, evaluating the matter on record, statement of witness in the court, cross examination and arguments made by the counsel for the both the parties, I Vishwendra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar as per the powers conferred to me UNDER Section 145 CrPC hereby decide that the suit property i.e. shop No. 64 of Sarojini Nagar Market was in possession of Sh. S.K. Gandhi prior to initiation of this case and was dispossessed partially from the suit property. Hence possession of Sh. S.K. Gandhi, party No. 1 is hereby restored and party No. 2 i.e. Sh. Jagdish Gandhi and Sh. Pritam Gandhi are evicted from the suit property.2. Firstly, I am dealing with the primary objection of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »