Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Jiten Bhalla Son of Shri R.K. Bhalla Vs. Ms. Gaytri Bajaj Daughte ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC503; 2008(106)DRJ651
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short as Act) read with Order 41 of CPC, against the order dated 25th September, 2007 passed by Sh. V.K. Khanna, Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that the parties to the present appeal were married on 10th December, 1992 at Delhi according to Hindu Customs and rites. Two daughters, namely, Ms Kirti and Ms. Ridhi Bhalla were born from the said marriage on 20th August, 1995 and 19th April, 2000 respectively.3. It is stated that the respondent, accompanied the appellant on 23rd May, 2003 to the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, for signing the documents/petition. The First Motion under Section 13-B(2) of the Act along with an application under Section 151 CPC for waiving the statutory period of six months, was listed on 26th May, 2003. The Addl.District Judge allowed the waiving of statutory period of six months on the same date and ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Anand Swarup Khandelwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN450(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') preferred against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in IT(SS) No. 331/Del/2002 for the block period 1.4.88 to 15.10.98.2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the present Appeal is with regard to the deletion by the Tribunal of a sum of Rs. 21,61,67,368/- which had been added by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act on account of purported cash transaction in the sum of Rs. 108,08,36,839/-. 3. In order to dispose of the Appeal, the following facts relevant to the issue require to be noted. These are as follows:3.1 A search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of the Assessee i.e, Shri A.S. Khandelwal, on 15.10.1998. Consequently, a notice dated 11.11.99 under Section 158BC of the Act was issued, which was served on the Assessee on 22.11.99. By virtu...
Manish Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1293; 153(2008)DLT430; 2008(106)DRJ607
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The appellant was, by impugned judgment dated 24.3.2006, convicted under Sections 363/376/302 IPC and sentenced under different head of charges vide order dated 1.4.2006 as under:(i) Under Section 363 IPC - 5 Years RI(ii) Under Section 376 IPC - 7 Years RI(iii) Under Section 302 IPC - Imprisonment for life.All the above sentences are to run concurrently.2. The appellant is in appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence.3. The prosecution case unfolds that on the intervening night of 15th and 16th of July, 2000, Jagdish, PW-1 (complainant), his wife and two daughters, namely, Pinki, aged about 17 years and Asha, aged about 5 years, were sleeping outside their Jhuggi situate in the field of one Bhoop Singh at Thokar No. 10, Yamuna Khadar, Delhi. The complainant's younger daughter Asha was sleeping on a cot with her mother. Jagdish, PW-1, woke up at about 3/3.30 a.m. when it had started raining. He noticed his daughter Asha missing from ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Continental Air Express (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN41(Delhi)
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the Tribunal's order dated 10-9-2007. The impugned order relates to the assessment year 2001-02. It is also relevant to note that the impugned order is a composite order for two assessees Continental Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Continental Air Express Pvt. Ltd. ('the assessee' in the present case).2. In the case of the assessee [Continental Air Express (P.) Ltd.] it has been noted in the order of the Tribunal that the issue in the quantum appeal has been sent back for a consideration afresh by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer.3. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the present proceedings pertain to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and are relatable to the issue of disallowance of foreign travel expenses by the Assessing Officer. He has placed before us a copy of the order passed on 5-4-2007 by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal [ITA No. 1397/Delhi/2005] filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. Paragrap...
Sun Air Hotels Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR659(Delhi)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The petitioner-Sun Air Hotels Ltd. seeks to challenge the award dated 14th March, 1996 passed by the learned arbitrator Shri P.K. Dave, the then Lieutenant Governor, Delhi on the ground that the learned arbitrator has travelled beyond the scope of reference and has accordingly misconducted the proceedings.2. A few background facts may be narrated in order to decide the issues involved in the present petition. The petitioner is a public limited company, which was allotted a site to construct a hotel of not less than 3 star standard, at Mandir Marg, New Delhi in the year 1977. The said allotment was made out of a successful bid at an open auction. When the petitioner commenced construction, the allotment was cancelled. In view of the earlier allotment, however, another site measuring 7109 sq. yds., i.e. 80,000 sq. feet was allotted to the petitioner on 09.12.1982 at Gole Market, New Delhi. An agreement called a licence deed was executed on 08.12.1982, whereby NDMC la...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Diamond Products Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN331(Delhi)
ORDER1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed on 25-1-2008 in ITA No. 634/Delhi/2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03. Two grounds were taken by the revenue before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1 pertained to the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') on account of alleged unexplained cash credit. Under ground No. 2, the revenue had challenged the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,49,189 made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure.2. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of both the grounds and dismissed the revenue's appeal.3. With regard to ground No. 1, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S. Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]308ITR69(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN311(Delhi)
C.M. No. 4222/2008 (condonation of delay) in I. T. A. No. 366/20081. For the reasons stated in the application and on submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, this application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay is condoned. This application stands disposed of.I.T.A. No. 366/20082. This appeal pertains to the block assessment period April 1, 1989, to January 15, 2000, and is directed against the order dated January 5, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The issue involved before the Tribunal was whether surcharge could be levied in the case of a search carried out prior to June 1, 2002. The Tribunal took the view that the proviso inserted to Section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act of 2002, with effect from June 1, 2002, was prospective and that surcharge could only be levied in respect of searches conducted after June 1, 2002. The search in the present case was conducted on November 25, 1999.4. The second point on which ...
Shanti Mann Vs. Moral Properties Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)154PLR6
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. I.A No. 10202/2008 of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in C.S. (OS) No. 463 of 2008.2. The Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who now appears for defendant No. 3 as well, states that the defendant No. 3 is also a director of the defendant No. 1 and the application may be treated as on behalf of all the defendants. 2. No reply to the application has been filed by the plaintiff. However, the counsel for the plaintiff has handed over a reply in the Court and the same is taken on record.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 26.4.2004 of sale of immovable property. The said agreement on page four thereof contains the following clauses:That if the second party fails to make the payment of the balance amount as agreed upon, at the time of vacant physical possession and clear of NOC from the Land Acquisition Department, from date of this Agreement. The transa...
Shri A.K. Nayar Vs. Sh. Mahesh Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT423; 2008(106)DRJ796
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 17th November, 1999 of ARC allowing an Eviction Petition of landlord. At the time of filing of the petition on 24th April, 2000, the petitioner had contended that there was no record to show that respondent was owner of the premises. He was only attorney of the owner and had no right in the suit premises. The notice was issued to the respondent limited to the question of ownership of the suit premises.2. The petition for eviction in respect of property No. C-3/2, Janak Puri under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act was filed by Sh. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava, respondent, on the ground of his bonafide requirement. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed. Undisputedly , the premises was also let out for residential purpose. The bonafide requirement of the landlord was established through cogent evidence. However, the tenant had taken an objection that Sh. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Visit. Com Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)603; 153(2008)DLT226; [2009]176TAXMAN164(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2001-02.2. The only issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the amount of Rs 20,23,317/- incurred by the assessee on development of its website was an expenditure of a capital nature or of a revenue nature. The assessee is engaged in the travel business and makes all kinds of arrangements for its clients such as booking of hotel rooms, providing taxi services, booking of air tickets and railway tickets etc. In its website, the assessee indicates the various destinations and places for which it can arrange travel, hotel booking etc. for its clients. The assessee's clients can use the assessee's website for the purposes of availing of the services provided by the assessee.3. According to the Assessing Officer the expenditure of Rs 20,23,317/- made by the assessee in the year in question was of a capit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »