Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)475

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 18th July, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C New Delhi (the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3090/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of a travel agency. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year the assessee had entered into certain business transactions with M/s Holiday Resort (P) Ltd. and M/s Ambassador Tours (India) (P) Ltd.As a result of these business transactions, there were some financial transactions but the AO came to the conclusion that because of the shareholding pattern, these financial transactions would fall in the category of 'deemed dividend' defined under Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961. This view was upheld by the CIT(A).3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed.4. The Tribunal was of the view that there is nothing on record to show that the amounts considered by the AO...

Sant Lal Kanhaiya Lal and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ162

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 02.05.95 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi.2. The appellant Sant Lal Kanhaiya Lal filed a claim application against the respondent claiming a compensation of Rs. 81,337.50.3. The case set up by the appellant was that it had entrusted a consignment comprising of 219 bags of Urad dal to the respondent for transport from Vizianagaram station to New Delhi. That the consignment was booked under railway receipt No. 683148 dated 18.05.88. That the consignment was found in a damaged condition on 13.08.88 i.e. when the delivery of the consignment was taken from the respondent. That the damage took place due to gross negligence and misconduct of the employees of the respondent. That it called upon the respondent to make payment of the compensation for the loss and issued notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of th...

Cit Vs. Goyal M.G. Gases (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]320ITR669(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 21-7-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No. 1320 (Delhi) of 2002 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The assessee had taken a loan in foreign exchange from the Citi Bank, UK. The total amount borrowed was about US$ 7 million. It appears that a part of the loan amount was utilized for purchase of capital equipment and that was included in capital work-in-progress. The remaining amount of US$ 3.67 million was utilized by the assessee for its business purposes that is of money lending and bill discounting.3. On 31-3-1998, the assessee showed utilization of the amount to the Reserve bank of India wherein it mentioned that the amount of US$ 3.67million has been utilized by the assessee for its business purposes.4. In view of the fact that there was a fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange, the assessee suffered a loss and it claimed a deduction on account of the loss incurre...

P.S. Bisht Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This matter has been placed before me as a third member as there was difference of opinion amongst the members of Division Bench. The point of reference formulated by both the Hon'ble Members is as follows: Whether it is permissible in a disciplinary proceeding to bring on record the documents and witnesses tendered in a different and separate inquiry where the concerned delinquent had no opportunity of rebuttal. If not, whether this would have the effect of wiping out other evidence, if any, on record against the delinquent in his own enquiry.2. Hon'ble Members have even differed on the final decision of OA.Hon'ble Member (A) has held OA is liable to be dismissed as it is not a case of no evidence while Hon'ble Member (J) has held OA is partly allowed. Respondents have been directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits with liberty to resume the proceedings from the stage of examination of S/Shri Balachandran and Mukesh Chaturvedi.In these circumstances, it i...

Jai Singh Kanwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT354

ORDERIn supersession of all previous orders issued on the subject the Administrator, Delhi is pleased to order that following norms should be followed in respect of allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi of the Govt. of India contained in their letter dated 2.5.1961.1. In order to make the applicant eligible for allotment of alternative plot, the minimum land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi will be one bigha instead of 150 Sq. Yds.2. In case the applicant has purchased the requisite land of 1 bigha he should have purchased the land 5 years earlier than the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in order to make him eligible for allotment of alternative plot.3. Condition No. 2 will, however, not be applicable in respect of ancestral cases.4. Maximum size of the plot will be restricted to 250 Sq. Yds. where land a...

Archie Comic Publications, Inc. Vs. Purple Creations Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)289; 2008(37)PTC279(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff had instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, damages etc. against the defendants. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the field of printed matter, paper articles, newspapers, periodicals, comic magazines, cartoon strips, story books, films etc. The plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of the Archie Comic Publications as well as the 'ARCHIE' Trademark and its variations which, inter alia, include ARCHIE'S, LITTLE ARCHIE, THE ARCHIES, ARCHIE COMICS etc. The plaintiff has alleged that the trademark 'ARCHIE' was adopted by it in 1942. It also forms part of the plaintiff's trade name. It is contended that by virtue of the long, continuous, open and extensive use by the plaintiff, the 'ARCHIE' trademarks have become intertwined with the identity of the plaintiff and as a result, consumers all over the world, including those in India, associate the 'ARCHIE' trademarks with the plaintiff and nobody else.2. It is ...

Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ421(Del); 151(2008)DLT180; 2008(102)DRJ713

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Through this application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), the plaintiff is seeking, as an interim injunction, essentially the same relief sought in the suit itself , which is to restrain the defendants from initiating any fresh proceedings against the plaintiff in a foreign court and from continuing with the suit - Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Moser Baer India Ltd. - filed by the defendant No. 1 at The Hague, The Netherlands, as well as from continuing with the third party claim and counter claim filed by the defendant No. 1 against, inter alia, the plaintiff in the complaint [Civ.A. No. 07-3668 (DWF/AJB)] filed by Imation Corporation before the Minnesota District Court, USA. Briefly put, the plaintiff prays for an anti-suit injunction against the defendants (more particularly against defendant No. 1) on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court in the plaintiff's earlier ...

Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Ved Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ185

1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 460/2004 dated 3rd August, 2007 wherein a decree was passed in favor of the respondent and against the appellant for the sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 14th October, 2004 till the realization of the entire decretal amount.2. The facts of the case are restated as follows:a. The appellant was engaged in the transport business. In the month of December 1998, the appellant approached the respondent No. 1 for some financial assistance as he was facing tremendous financial problems.b. The respondent No. 1 considered the request of the appellant and paid him a sum of Rs. 7,73,000/- on 1st December, 1998. The appellant acknowledged having received an amount of Rs. 7,73,000/- by executing a note dated 1st December, 1998.c. The appellant assured the return of the loan in the monthly installment of Rs. 30,000/- on 22nd of ...

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. Vs. Aes Aerospace Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR63(Delhi); 2008(103)DRJ174

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking interim measures of protection which include restraining the respondent or its agents from alienating, encumbering, disposing of, selling, destroying, etc., the goods in question and in allowing the petitioner to remove the said goods from the warehouse of M/s Sagar Warehousing Corporation and shift the same to its premises at Mumbai.2. On 20.12.2002, this Court, after hearing the petitioner and after considering the contents of the petition, was of the view that a prima facie case for granting ex parte ad interim injunction in terms of prayer (a) of the petition had been made out and accordingly it was so ordered. Prayer (a) of the petition reads as under:(a) Restrain the respondent or its agents, more particularly M/s Fly Jac, having its office at 516-517, Vishal Tower, 10 District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 ...

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]308ITR237(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The following five questions of law have been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of 50% of the assessor's share of the expenditure on maintenance of Kamla retreat.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that only 50% of depreciation is admissible in respect of the assets installed in the premises of JKCM and that no depreciation is admissible at all in respect of the assets installed in the premises of PPL, the amounts of disallowance confirmed being Rs. 30,234/- and Rs. 11,943/- respectively in each case.3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the limit of Rs. 5000/- prescribed in proviso to Section 80VV is an overall limit and not relating to and in ea...