Delhi Court December 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 4 of about 69 results (0.020 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)128; [2010]320ITR542(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN324(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The revenue is in appeal being aggrieved by the common order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in relation to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Assessing Officer had made an addition in respect of the amount of compensation and interest received by the assessee from the Government of the United States of America.2. In January, 1982, the assessee had applied for a job in the Voice of America which was a state owned broadcasting agency. In 1984, the assessee was informed that she had cleared the competitive test. But, she was never offered the job. It is relevant to note that in 1977, a class action suit had been filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States entitled Carolee Brady Heartman, et al. v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State and Marc B. Nathanson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors: Civil Action No. 77-2019 JR. The said class action had been brought on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Web Commerce (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]138ITR135(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN310(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In the present appeal the appellant seeks to raise the question of interpretation with regard to the provisions of Section 10B(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The said provision is virtually identical to the provisions of Section 80IA(7) as also 80HHB(3)(ia). It is also identical to the erstwhile provisions of Section 80J(6A) of the said Act.2. This Court has already interpreted the latter provisions and has held the same to be directory and not mandatory. The contention of the revenue was that unless and until the audit report is filed along with the return, the benefit of Section 10A cannot be available to the assessee. Recently, we have considered the identical provisions of Section 80IA(7) in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electricals Private Limited ITA 1366/2008 decided on 02.12.2008 and held that as long as the audit report is filed before the framing of the assessment, the provisions of Section 80IA(7) would b...
Tag this Judgment!Yadav Flour Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Globus Agronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)154PLR33
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,63,640/- (Rupees Six lac. Sixty three thousand six hundred and forty only) alleging that it had been supplying Bajra Atta to the respondent and one of its units, namely, Haryana Organics and pertaining to the supplies delayed payments were received due to which interest in sum of Rs. 4,43, 142/- (Rupees Four lacs. forty-three thousand one hundred and forty two only) and Rs. 1,64,698/- (Rs. One lac. Sixty four thousand six hundred and ninety-eight only) had accrued. Additionally it was pleaded that as per agreement between the parties if the empty gunny bags were not returned price thereof @ Rs. 12/- per bag was payable. Rs. 30,276/- (Rupees thirty thousand two hundred and seventy-six only) and Rs. 25,524/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand five hundred twenty four only) as the price of unreturned gunny bags was prayed to be decreed.2. The respondent took a stand in the written statement that on 10.2.1999 a settlement w...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Sareen and ors. Vs. Nilam Kumari Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)154PLR31
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioners have assailed an order dated 20th August, 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge dismissing on application of the petitioners for extension of time for filing written statement.2. The plaintiff (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration, injunction and specific performance in 1994. After defendants were served, some of the defendants were proceeded ex parte. However, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 put appearance and made an application under Section 10 and Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC for stay of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit qua same property and plaintiff was bound to claim all the reliefs at one go while filing earlier suit. This suit was not maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The other ground taken was that since the property involved was the same and issues and the parties were same, this suit should be stayed. However, this application remained pending for years together and was not dec...
Tag this Judgment!A. Khandelwal and Sons, (Huf) Vs. Sardar Mall Alok Kumar (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT102
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The objection to the execution raises for adjudication legal issue, as to what is the liability of the individual co-parcener in a decree against a Hindu Undivided Family carrying business - whether it is to the extent of their share in the assets of the said joint Hindu Undivided Family only or does it extend to their personal assets also.2. The factual matrix in which the aforesaid legal issue has arisen is as under. The decree holder, itself a Hindu Undivided Family through its Karta instituted CS(OS) No. 1129/2002 under Order 37 of the CPC in this Court against 'M/s Sardar Mall Alok Kumar, HUF through Shiv Dayal Jagwayan, Karta' for recovery of Rs. 27,09,905/- with future interest. It was inter-alia stated in the plaint that:the defendant is a Hindu Undivided Family with Shiv Dayal as its Karta his wife Champa Jagwayan as its member and sons Ashish and Alok Jagwayan as co-parceners.3. It was further stated that the decree holder/plaintiff had over a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Private Limited Vs. Sachdeva ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT683
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The application of the plaintiff for interim relief is for consideration. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for injunction to restrain infringement of its trade mark and for ancillary relief of delivery, rendition of accounts, damages, etc.2. The trade mark of the plaintiff is Double Deer registered on 5th August, 1985 with respect to Rice for sale in the States of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Gujarat, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Maharashtra and Union Territory of Delhi. The trade mark has been renewed from time to time and assigned from time to time. The plaintiff also holds a registration certificate dated 18th January, 1990 of its label showing two deer facing each other and with a Flag between them and with the name Double Deer Brand Special Dehraduni Basmati Rice written above them, also in respect of Rice for sale in the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Union Territory of Pondicherry. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nilima Gupta, Vs. Yogesh Saroha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT129
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent No. 3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents No. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Chatterjee Vs. Ashok Kumar Chatterjee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT475
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The purchasers from the defendant in this suit for partition of immovable property claim substitution in place of the defendant. The application is opposed by the defendant only to the extent of substitution. The defendant otherwise has no objection to the impleadment of the applicants as a party to the suit. The plaintiffs, however, oppose substitution or even impleadment of the applicants as parties.2. This suit for partition has been pending since 1994 and the plaintiffs and the defendant have already concluded their evidence and the suit is ripe for final arguments. The plaintiffs claimed that each of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 and the defendant have a 1/7th share in the property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the predecessor of the parties was a member of the cooperative society which had allotted the land; that the said predecessor with the consent of all the parties transferred the said land in the name of the defendant being the eldest son so as ...
Tag this Judgment!J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. National Building Construction Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR578(Delhi)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The arbitral award dated 28th August, 1999 was filed in this Court and notice of filing whereof was issued on 30th November, 1999. Notice was accepted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner herein on the same date. The petitioner has not filed any objections to the award. The respondent filed IA. No. 2119/2000 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 objecting to the award. An affidavit in opposition thereto was filed by the petitioner and a rejoinder thereto filed by the respondent. The counsels have been heard.2. The admitted position is that an agreement dated 14th August, 1978 was executed between the parties whereunder the respondent engaged the petitioner as a Piece Rate Worker (PRW) for executing the work of construction of 100 houses in Libya. The time for completion of the said 100 houses was fixed at 18 months from 1st September, 1978. Additional work of 28 houses was also awarded by the respondent to the petitioner. The agreement, a...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Hotels Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN301(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present set of eight appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 15.06.2007 in MA 328/Del/2006 pertaining to the financial years 1994-1995 to 2000-2001 and 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2001. By virtue of the impugned order the Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous application filed on behalf of the revenue under Section 254(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue was seeking rectification of the earlier order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Tribunal in TDS Appeal No. 18 to 25/Del/2003 in respect of the above mentioned financial years. By virtue of the order dated 30.11.2005, the Tribunal concluded as under:6. We, after having heard the parties, are of the view that once the Revenue has collected the tax in respect of the impugned additional payments made by the assessee to IAAI, no action under Section 201(1) is required. In these circumstances, we quash the impugned order with a direction to the AO to verify the facts as...
Tag this Judgment!