Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Marina Hotel

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)112ITD159(Delhi)

1. Both these appeals of the Revenue involve common grounds regarding the deductibility or otherwise of the depreciation on foreign made cars in computing the income of the assessee. The appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.2. In view thereof, we find it fit to pass a common order on these appeals For the sake of ready reference, the grounds taken by the Revenue in the appeal for asst. yr. 2001-02 are reproduced below: (1) The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow depreciation on foreign made car without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not in the business of running car on hire for tourist, but in the business of running hotel. (2) The learned CIT(A) further erred in holding that depreciation has been rightly claimed on imported car without appreciating the fact that the taxi facilities were provided to their own hotel guests/clients and not to the tourists in general. (3...

Nulon India Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)142; [2009]183TAXMAN229(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the assessed challenging the impugned order dated 25th August, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E' (for short as 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 152/Del/2006 for the assessment year 2001-02 vide which the appeal filed by the assessed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short as CIT (A)] was dismissed.2. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this case is:Whether notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case has not been served within the mandatory period as prescribed under the law3. The brief facts of this case are that the assessed filed the return of income on 31st October, 2001. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 29th October, 2002 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act'). The same was sent through speed post on 30th October, 2002 and it was issued at the address mentioned in the return of inco...

Kapur Son (India) Vs. N.C.T. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ573

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.CM No. 12970/20071. This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act which has been filed by respondent No. 2/ workman, Sh. Bansu Ram.2. This application, which is stated to have been filed on 4th April, 2006, came to be filed under the following circumstances:The workman, Bansu Ram filed a claim before the Labour Court alleging that he has been working with the management ever since 23rd August, 1968, and that his last drawn wages were Rs. 2800/- per month. He stated that his services were terminated on 19th March, 2002 in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and of the Labour Laws. The Labour Court found that although the management had been duly served in the matter, it had chosen to stay away from the proceedings. Consequently, on 17th January, 2004, the management was directed to be proceeded ex parte. After examining the case of the workman as also the evidence produced by him, the Labour Court concluded that his services...

Shri Rajesh Kumar Sardana S/O Late Vs. Shri V.N. Mathur, General

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This CP was filed alleging disobedience of order dated 27.11.2006 passed in OA 2450/2006. It is stated by the counsel for applicant that they had earlier filed CP 163/2007 but simultaneously respondents had filed an MA for extension of time, therefore, accepting their contention, aforesaid CP 163/2007 was dropped, but in spite of making submission that they would be complying with the directions since no orders were passed by the respondents, applicant has filed present CP.2. Respondents have filed their compliance affidavit by annexing order dated 22.2.2008 whereby request of applicant has been rejected for regularization as Clerk in the grade of Rs. 3,050-4,590/- but it has been clarified that he can be considered upon his qualifying selection for the post of Clerk subject to availability of vacancy in Bridge Department. Therefore, his case would be considered as and when vacancies become available as per rules. They have also tendered their apology for delay in passing the final...

Smt. Gurmail Kaur Widow of Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) to pay the family pension to the applicant from the date of death of late Shri Ram Lal with all the arrears and interest @ 18% per annum on the entire amount of arrears of family pension; (ii) to allow OA and direct the respondents to pay provident fund, gratuity etc. of Late Shri Ram Lal with interest @ 18% per annum from the date these benefits were due to the date these benefits were due to the date of actual payment.2. It is stated by the applicant that her husband was screened vide letter dated 10.7.1989 wherein his name was shown at Sl. No. 1355 (page 30 at 15). He had already acquired temporary status before his death, therefore, she is entitled to get the family pension. On limitation, they have referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr.3. It is submitted by the applicant that even though she has been offered appointment on temporary basis vide letter dated 24.9.1998, but till date...

Rohitasava Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)617; [2008]306ITR242(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 19th January, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 4713 (Del)/2003 relevant for the assessment year 2000-2001.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the non-compete fee received by the assessed in terms of the agreement dated 4th December, 1997 was a capital receipt in the hands of the assessedFiling of paper books is dispensed with.3. The assessed was a shareholder and a Director in a company called IIS Infotech Ltd. He entered into two agreements dated 4th December, 1997 with F.I. Group Plc, U.K. (hereinafter referred to as the 'foreign company'). By one agreement, the assessed agreed to sell all his shares in IIS Infotech Ltd. and by the other agreement, the assessed agreed that till 31st May, 1999 he wo...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (Previously Royal Enfie ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)612; [2008]302ITR249(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 9th December, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 2881/Del/2001 relevant for the Assessment Year 1995-96.2. A full time employee of the assessed called Vishwanathan had acquired, during the course of his employment, specialized knowledge of technology in the two-wheeler industry as well as of managing the dealership of the market place and other specialized knowledge relating to the two-wheeler business. Vishwanathan entered into an agreement with a company called VCPL to the effect that he would promote VCPL and collaborate with it to set up manufacturing facilities for two-wheelers upon his retirement from the assessed.3. On coming to know of this, the assessed negotiated a 'non-compete agreement' with VCPL and Vishwanathan whereby the assessed paid a sum of Rs. 4 crores to VCPL so that VCPL and Vishwanathan would not carry out any business activity with ...

Manmohan Singh Chawla and ors. Vs. Rajesh Berry and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT119

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J. IA Nos. 14813/20071. This application under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 read with Sections 16(a) and (d) and 151 of CPC has been made by the defendants for return of the plaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the instant suit.2. It is settled law that in order to consider whether a plaint is liable to be returned or not, the Court has to consider the pleadings in the plaint and see if on the basis of pleadings in the plaint, the suit is barred by any law or the Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the Court has to read the plaint meaningfully as a whole and cannot go by the clever drafting of the plaint. : AIR2007SC1636 Begum Sabiha Sultan v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan and Ors.3. The present suit has been filed by the trustees of a public trust namely Dashmesh Education Charitable Trust and against two of its erstwhile trustees/members seeking that a money decree for a sum of Rs. 12 crore be pas...

Smt. Alka Gupta Vs. the Registrar Cooperative Societies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT615

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The aforesaid three writ petitions, which are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment, are directed against the non-allotment of flats to the petitioners by the respondent No. 3 Society and seek quashing of order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Joint Registrar of Delhi Cooperative Societies.2. Since almost similar facts with some variations in the amounts paid to the respondent No. 3 Society and the dates thereof have led to the filing of the writ petitions and the relief prayed for is also similar, it is proposed to set out the facts as narrated in W.P.(C) No. 7226/2003 Smt. Alka Gupta v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Anr.3. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the aforesaid writ petition is as follows.4. The respondent No. 3 is a Cooperative Group Housing Society registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 vide registration No. 498 GH. The petitioner who claims to be a regular and bonafide member of...

Dabur India Limited Vs. Mr. Rajesh Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT338; 2008(103)DRJ596; 2008(37)PTC227(Del)

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants claiming that the defendants were infringing trade mark and registered design of the plaintiff and were passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. Defendants also claimed damages and rendition of accounts. The above application being is No. 1881/07 is made by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that plaintiff claimed that it was marketing 'Dabur Amla Hair Oil' in bottles having a distinctive design having semi circular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel converging taperly into each other. The shape and configuration of plaintiff's bottle was unique, novel and original and was registered as design No. 17324 under the Designs Act and was valid up to 24th February, 2011. The green cap put over the bottle was also unique and this was registered under Designs Act as design No. 171486 valid...