Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 6 of about 102 results (0.023 seconds)Shiv Pal Singh Vs. Shriram Scientific and Industuri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT1
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.CM No. 14830/20081. Heard.2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the order dated 15th October 2008 is hereby recalled. The petitioner is given liberty to address arguments on merits.3. The application stands disposed of.CMM 570/20071. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17th February 2007 passed by the first appellate Court (ARCT) dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Additional Rent Controller dated 29th November 2006 allowing the eviction petition of the respondent.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the premises bearing No. D-4, Sri Colony, University Road, Delhi-110007 was allotted to the petitioner by virtue of his employment with the respondent on 29th July 1988. The petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent after holding an inquiry, on 7th June 1994. He was asked to vacate the said premises but he declined to do so and a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Golden Transport Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN223(Delhi)
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. We see no reason to interfere with the conclusions and findings arrived at by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has confirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). One of the directions given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is that the Assessing Officer is at liberty to carry out necessary investigation to arrive at the fair market value of the assets on the date of transfer to the assessee for computing the capital gains (if any) within the meaning of Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by taking appropriate proceedings as per law. This direction has remained undisturbed by virtue of the Tribunal's orders which are impugned herein. Neither the revenue nor the assessee had preferred any appeal on this aspect of the matter before the Tribunal. As we see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's orders, the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2010]321ITR104(Delhi); [2009]182TAXMAN59(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 21.4.2006 passed in IT Appeal Nos 3416 and 3417/Del/2003 in respect of financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively. The sole issue sought to be raised in these appeals is whether the services rendered by the non-resident company Noble Denton and Associates Ltd, (NDAL), UAE for the transportation and jacking up of rigs, review of design and issuance of suitability certificate is covered under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 thereto or under Section 44-BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is in connection with deduction of tax at source.2. The Tribunal concluded that a reading of the provisions of Section 44-BB as well as Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act clearly showed that the consideration in question paid or payable by the assessee to NDAL for the services rendered was covered by the provisions of Section 44-BB and not by Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.3. This conclusion of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-xvii Vs. Dewan Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN173(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CM Nos. 15568/08, 15569/08 and 15577/08 (for exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions.CMs stand disposed of.ITA Nos 1273/2008, 1274/2008, 1280/2008 and 1284/20081. These four appeals arise out of the common order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos 1708 to 1711/Del/2006 pertaining to financial years 2001-02 to 2004-05. All these appeals raise issues relating to Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Two points arise for consideration. The first point is with regard to the deduction of tax at source in respect of amounts paid to persons who have already paid tax on the said receipts. The Assessing Officer noted that if the deductees had already paid tax on the income received from the assessee (deductor), the same would not be recoverable from deductor. The Assessing Officer, however, noted that it was for the deductor to prove that the deductee had declared the payments received from the deductor as in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Heidrick and Struggles Ind. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN169(Delhi)
ORDERCM 16131/2008 (for condonation of delay)1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant. The delay is condoned. This application stands disposed of.CM 16130/20082. This is an application seeking recall of the order dated 12-8-2008 on the ground that the tax effect has been wrongly indicated as Rs. 1,67,300 in the memorandum of appeal. Ms. Bansal who appears for the appellant/applicant states that on verification she found that the tax effect had been wrongly computed. The appeal was dismissed because the tax effect was below Rs. 4 lakhs which is the lower limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for appeals to this Court. She submitted that on a correct calculation the tax effect actually works out to Rs. 7,60,263.3. Considering the fact that this was a mistake and that the tax effect was more than Rs. 4 lakhs, we allow this application and restore the appeal by recalling the order dated 12-8-2008.4. This application stands disposed of.ITA 607/20085. ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonu Chauhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008ACJ230
S.N. Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 11.7.2008 passed by M.A.C.T. whereby an application of the petitioner under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to permit the petitioner/insurer to contest the claim of the injured on the grounds available to the owner was dismissed. There is no dispute to the fact that owner in this case had become ex parte. The petitioner's counsel when asked questions to the witness regarding his income, etc. the court disallowed the questions observing that the cross-examination must be confined to the defence as per statutory rights under Section 149(2) of the Act. When an application under Section 170 of the Act was moved by the insurance company, the same was dismissed on the ground that there were no allegations of collusion between the injured and the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle. They were only not participating in the proceedings. The trial court considered that before permission could ...
Tag this Judgment!Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aia Engineering Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT73; 2009(39)PTC212(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for anti suit injunction, damages and other reliefs. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking issuance of an ex parte ad interim injunction being I.A. No. 5854/08 has also been filed. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued on 13th May 2008 restraining the Appellants, their agents and representatives from proceeding further with the complaint pending on the file of the United States International Trade Commission, Washington DC, USA ( hereinafter referred to as 'USITC') under Section 337 of the United States Trade Tariff Act.2. Against the said ex-parte ad-interim order present Appeal under Section 10(1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order 41 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed.3. While granting the ex parte ad interim injunction the learned single Judge in Para 12 of the impugned order has given the following reasons:In the present case, the plaintiff, in addition to disclosing a prima facie case ...
Tag this Judgment!Beiersdorf A.G. Vs. Ajay Sukhwani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT83; LC2009(1)143
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. M/s. Beiersdorf AG, the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark NIVEA under Class 3, toiletries, under the Trade Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Defendant no.-2 M/s. Nivea International is a partnership firm and Mr. Ajay Sukhwani, defendant no.1 is one of its partners. It is engaged in the business of educational consultancy and allied services. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for passing off and restraining the defendants from using mark/word NIVEA as a trademark/trade name or as a part of trading style and also from operating a website with the domain name www. niveainternational. com.2. On the basis of the pleadings and documents filed by the parties, the following issues were framed on 8th November, 2005:(i) Whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark NIVEA and is entitled to protect the said trademark in respect of different goods/services(ii) Whether the trademark NIVEA is a well known trademark...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Gupta and anr. Vs. Madan Lal Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT155
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Late Shri Govardhan Dass Gupta was blessed with three sons, Madan Lal Gupta, Hari Ram Gupta and Rameshwar Dass Gupta. He was blessed with a daughter Ms. Bishni Devi. He was a prosperous man. He died on 22.11.1971. His children and his wife Kesar Devi were the heirs.2. Various properties standing in his name became the subject matter of litigation in the family. Respondent No. 1, Madan Lal Gupta, unfortunately, appears to have fallen foul with his brothers, his sister and his mother. He sued for partition and rendition of accounts.3. The suit filed by Madan Lal Gupta has resulted in the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.4.2007 declaring that he has 1/3rd share in property bearing Municipal No. 91/9, Block-C, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi and that his two brothers Hari Ram Gupta and Rameshwar Dass Gupta have 1/3rd share each in the said property. Similarly, in respect of property No. 387, Block-D, Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, finding returned is that each broth...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. Mantec Consultants (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN429(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 15.02.2008 in ITA No. 888/Del/2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. This matter has had two rounds before the Tribunal. The issue pertains to the allowability of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'). Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the first instance, the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHE for which purpose Form No. 10CCAF was filed. However, in the course of appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed Form 56 F which is required to be filed under Rule 16D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with Section 10A(5) of the said Act for claiming deduction under Section 10A.2. In the first round before the...
Tag this Judgment!