Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mokul Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)74; [2008]306ITR47(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi ('the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 3857/Del/2003, 3256/Del/2003 and CO No. 203/Del/2005 in ITA No. 3857/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The only issue in this appeal is whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148/147 of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act') were valid in law.3. The AO sought to reopen the assessment proceedings and the reasons given were as follows:During the course of assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1998-99 it was noticed that the assessee company received loans from M/s Mokul Overseas (P) Ltd. and M/s Mokul International Ltd. There are common directors in these three companies who are also the shareholders. The companies, which gave loans, had accumulated profits and provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were invoked.During the asst. yr. 1996-97 also the assessee company received a loan of Rs. 1,96,68,192 from M/s Mokul Overseas (P...

Ramesh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ697

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Notice, which is accepted by the learned Counsel for the State.2. On 03-06-1998, a water tanker being driven at a very fast speed by the accused/petitioner in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the pedestrian/deceased from behind who was walking on the left side of the road as a result of which the deceased received crushed head injuries. The deceased thereafter was removed to a hospital by the public gathered at the spot where he was declared brought dead by the doctor. An FIR was registered vide FIR No. 270/98 and charges were framed against the petitioner for offences under Section 279/304A IPC.3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses but the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of PW1, Ct. Raj Kumar, who was on patrol duty and is a crucial witness to this case being an eye witness. The petitioner preferred to claim trial and lead defence evidence by way of examining DW1 and got his statement recorded. After the conclusion of the trial,...

Bharat Singh S.i. (Exe) S/O Late Vs. Commissioner of Police, Joint

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present case provides a classic example how lightly and by complete lack of application of mind, some times, the authorities entrusted with handling/dealing with enquiries against employees act, who may be visited with such punishments that may totally ruin their career.2. Bharat Singh, the applicant herein, faced a regular departmental enquiry on the following charge, which came to be framed by the enquiry officer after recording statements of HC Sunil Kumar (PW-1), Const.Dalip (PW-2), HC Ramanand (PW-3), SI Yad Ram (PW-4), Inspr. Ombir Singh (PW-5), Inspr. Jagdish Pandey (PW-6), and Ramesh Kumar Chauhan (PW-7): I, H.V.S. Rathi, E.O. ACP/DE Cell, Delhi charge you SI Bharat Singh No. D-633 (PIS No. 16970165) that while you were posted at CAW Cell, South Delhi, the investigation of case FIR No. 393/03 under Section 498-A/406/420 IPC P.S. H.N.Din, New Delhi was entrusted to you. During investigation of the said case, L.O.C. of accused Darshan Kumar Sharma was got opened at Immigr...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]306ITR173(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of this common judgment, all the above three appeals are being disposed of since the common question of law is involved in all these case.2. The short question in these appeals raised by the Revenue is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as Tribunal ) was correct in quashing the assessment framed under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as Act ) ignoring the provisions of Section 149(1)(a) of the Act.3. Brief facts leading to dispute are that the original assessments for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were completed on 28th October, 1993, 26th November, 1993 and 18th January, 2004 respectively under Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 3,27,170/-, Rs. 7,84,160/- and Rs. 6,21,830/- respectively. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer came to know that ratable value in respect of properties bearing No. B-6 and B-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi owned by the assessed have been determined at Rs. ...

Mr. Praveen Gupta Vs. Star Share and Stock Brokers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR131(Delhi); 149(2008)DLT72; 2008(102)DRJ633

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') has been filed challenging the Award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 10.05.2007. 2. By virtue of the impugned Award the petitioner's claim was found to be barred by time. The Arbitral Tribunal referred to Chapter XI of the bye-laws framed by the National Stock Exchange of India. The said Chapter pertains to arbitration. Bye-law (3) of Chapter XI stipulates the limitation period for reference of claims, differences or disputes for arbitration. It stipulates that all claims, differences or disputes referred to in bye-laws (1), (1A), (1B) and (1D) shall be submitted to arbitration within six months from the date on which the claim, difference or dispute arises or is deemed to have been arisen. It further provides that time taken in conciliation proceedings, if any, initiated and conducted as per the provisions of the said Act and the time taken...

Li and Fung India P.Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)252; [2008]305ITR105(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case, assessed is eligible for deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 19612. Brief facts of this case are that the assessed claimed to have rendered technical services out of India as buying agent and thus claimed to be eligible for deduction of Rs. 3,20,81,836/- under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as Act ). However, as positive income was shown at Rs. 1,40,50,080/-, the deduction under the above provision was restricted to the income shown. The Assessing Officer was however of the view that the assessed has merely rendered managerial services not of technical nature and thus requirement of Section 80-O of the Act was not satisfied. The Assessing Officer thus denied the deduction claimed by the assessed.3. On appeal filed by the assessed, the CIT(A) held that services rendered by the assessed are professional a...

Ramniranjan Kedia Tourism Services Pvt. Limited Vs. Tilakraj and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ597; [2008(119)FLR617]; (2008)IIILLJ70Del

Anil Kumar, J.1. The applicants, Shri Tilak Raj, Shri A.R. Rahman, Shri Suresh Chand, Shri Vijender Kumar and Shri Raj Kumar, have sought directions against the petitioner/management to pay them last drawn wages from the date of award or minimum wages prescribed by the Government of NCT, whichever is higher, under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The applicants contended that an award dated 28th February, 2003 was passed in ID No. 571 of 1997 by the Labor Court IV, Karkardooma Courts, holding their termination illegal and directing the petitioner to reinstate the applicants with full back wages and continuity of service.3. The award dated 28th February, 2003 has been challenged by the petitioner/management in the present petition. The operation of the award was stayed by order dated 22nd September, 2006.4. The applicants Shri Tilakraj, Shri Suresh Chand, Shri Raj Kumar and Shri Vijender Kumar contended that they were drawing a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month whereas app...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)628; [2008]306ITR49(Delhi)

ORDER1. Admit.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration:Whether the AO could have passed an order under Section 271C of the IT Act, 1961 without giving any reasons whatsoever?3. Filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in ITA No. 1689/Del relevant for the financial years 1988-89 to 1997-98.5. The proceedings arose as a result of an order passed by the AO on 9th July, 1999. The entire order reads as follows:The penalty proceedings initiated in this case under Section 271C r/w Section 274 of the IT Act, 1961 are hereby dropped.6. The CIT exercised powers conferred under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') to revise the order passed by the AO on the ground that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.7. After hearing the assessee, the CIT concluded that the AO did not verify sever...

Jagmal (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ681

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The challenge raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2003, passed in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, plaintiffs in the suit, mainly on the basis of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The essential facts may be briefly delineated first.3. It is the case of the appellants-plaintiffs in the suit that since 1989, their predecessor-in-interest, one Shri Jagmal Singh who died during the pendency of the suit and prior to him, Shri Nathu Mai (his father), since 1977, owned and possessed the land comprised in Khasra No. 383 Village Tihar, New Delhi, measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas. Nathu Mai died on 5.02.1989 and thereafter-Jagmal Singh continued to hold, own and possess the aforesaid land though a.part of it was taken in the abadi and for road widening and thus the open land that remained with him was about 2 bighas. The lan...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Airtech Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly the respondent insured his vehicle for Rs. 5,51,169.86 covering risk of damage due to accident and theft. The vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the policy. The appellant settled the amount at Rs. 5,00,000 by assessing the market value and paid the same. The respondent filed the instant complaint before District Forum for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 51,165. 2. Vide order dated 19.12.2007, the complaint was allowed in the following terms: (i) To pay a sum of Rs. 51,165 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.4.2000 (when the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 was made to the complainant) till realisation. (ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant. (iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. 3. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the concept of market value being assessed at the rate of insurance amount was not there when the...