Delhi Court January 2009 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samtel Color Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN82(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 06.07.07 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 4037/Del/1999 in respect of assessment year 1996-972. The Revenue's appeal to this Court pertains to two issues. The first issue is related to allowance of depreciation to the assessee on the enhanced cost of the asset on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange on the last date of the accounting year. The second issue pertains to allowance of deduction in respect of money paid towards admission fee of clubs as revenue expenditure.2.1 In our order dated 30.09.2008, we had concluded that insofar as the first issue was concerned it was covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 451. As regards the second issue we had fixed the matter...
Purchasing Management International and anr. Vs. Rajat Pandhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT267
Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28th January, 2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 270 of 2005 (originally Suit No. 1898 of 2001) whereby the petitioners/defendants' application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit on 7th September, 2001 for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts against the petitioners/defendants. While the respondents/plaintiffs sought a declaration that the letter dated 17th August, 2001 issued by petitioners/defendants was illegal, null and void ab initio, it was further prayed that the petitioners/defendants are bound by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19th July, 2001 and Agreement dated 22nd June, 2001.3. In the initial written statement filed by the petitioners/defendant...
Director of Income Tax Vs. Sheraton International Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)752; [2009]313ITR267(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN84(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The captioned appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against a common judgment dated 04.10.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') passed in ITA Nos. 50/Del/2006 to 55/Del/2006 pertaining to assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-01 and ITA Nos. 168/Del/2006 to 171/Del/2006 in respect of assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has disposed of ten appeals, out of which six appeals were filed by the assessee i.e., Sheraton International Inc. while the remaining four appeals were filed by the Revenue. As is evident from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, both the assessee, as well as, the Revenue had filed four cross appeals each for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The remaining two, were the appeals of the assessee, for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has preferred the present ap...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangour Investment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: [2009]179TAXMAN1(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 19.05.2006 passed in ITA No. 2206/D/2000 in respect of the assessment year 1996-97.1.1 The sole issue raised in the appeal is the deletion of Rs. 71 lakhs received by the assessee on account of share application money by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] which has been sustained by the Tribunal.2. In order to dispose of this appeal the following facts require to be noted:2.1 The assessee had filed its income tax return declaring a loss of Rs. 35,09,344/-. The said return was filed on 29.11.1996. The assessee's return was picked up for scrutiny and a notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. During the course of enquiry the assessee, amongst other information, was required to...
Shiban Krishan Kaul Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT607
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') whereby authorizing the receiver to take physical possession of the immovable property bearing No. 3/17, Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'property').2. The brief facts of the case which led to the present writ petition as per the case set up by the petitioner are as follows:(a) The Petitioner Shri Shiban Krishan Kaul and Respondent No. 3 Shri P.D. Agarwal entered into an Agreement to sell on 3rd May, 1990 whereby the Petitioner was taken into employment of Respondent No. 2 M/s. Electronic Circuits Ltd. As per the agreement, the Petitioner in addition to the salary, was sold the property in question and installments thereof were deducted from the salary payable to the Petitioner.(b) The Petitioner was to remain in employment of Respondent No. 2 for a minimum period of 5 years, s...
Berjesh Goyal and anr. Vs. Daily Foods (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi118
ORDERManmohan, J.1. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of Order dated 24th January, 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge in C.S.(O.S.) No. 400 of 2003 being a suit for declaration and injunction.2. The said suit was initially filed in this Court being C.S. (O.S.) No. 2136 of 2001, but stood transferred to the District Court, Delhi and thereon it was renumbered as C.S. (O.S.) No. 400 of 2003. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit while the respondent is the plaintiff. In the suit, trial has commenced and Rakesh Kumar, the Plaintiff and the alleged sole proprietor of M/s Daily Foods (India) as PW1 has tendered his evidence being Examination in Chief.3. On 24th January, 2007 the suit was listed for cross-examination of Rakesh Kumar PW1. On that day, the counsel for the petitioner, in whose favour the petitioner had signed and executed the Vakalatnama, gave an authority letter to one Mr. A.K. Sahu, Ad...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bhardwaj Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT444
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant floated tender No. 05/DSE-C/95-96 dated 22.03.1996 for supply of 60,000 cubic metres of 65 mm gauge machine crushed stone ballast at Tughlakabad. The respondent was the successful tenderer and was awarded the contract for supply of 30,000 cubic metres of the stone ballast. The award of work was issued on 05.07.1996 though the formal contract/agreement was executed on 09.08.1996.2. Soon after the date of award of the work on 05.07.1996, there was a hike in the sales tax by the Haryana Government from where the raw material had to be sourced and the rate was increased from 9 to 15 per cent on 09.07.1996. The respondent, faced with the prospect of such imposition, made a representation dated 11.07.1996 requesting for a 12 per cent increase in the awarded rates on account of such levy.3. The formal acceptance of the tender of the respondent was communicated on 12.07.1996 which ultimately gave rise to the agreement being executed on 09.08.1996.4. It is...
Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT568
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of unreasonable and unfair prequalifying tender condition as well as quashing of issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) and award of contract to Respondent No. 2 & 3.2. Respondent No. 1-Delhi Jal Board (DJB) invited bids for construction of 55 mgd Raw Water Pumping Station and laying an additional 1500 mm diameter Raw Water Mains from Chainage 11.5 to WTP at Dwarka and MS clear Water Mains of diameter varying from 600 mm to 1600 mm from WTP Dwarka to various areas of Dwarka, Najafgarh, Daulatpur, Ujwa and IGI Airport in three packages 1A, 1B and III.3. The Notice Inviting Tenders was published in the newspapers on 9th of June, 2008. The original date for submission of bids for Package IA, Package IB and Package III were 4th July, 2008, 2nd July, 2008 and the 30th June, 2008 respectively. The DJB issued corrigendum II on 7th July, 2008 modifying certain terms and extending the time...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo Rama Synthetic Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN35(Delhi)
ORDER1. Two questions A and B have been proposed.2. So far as the second proposed question is concerned, it stands covered against the revenue by virtue of the decision of this Court in CLT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. : [2007]294ITR451(Delhi) .3. In regard to the first question, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee was following a different method for valuing inventory up to the last year. The assessee has changed the method of valuation of inventory, which has resulted in the inventory being shown at a lower value. It is not in dispute that the change is a result of the recommendation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and in consonance with Accounting Standard-2 (AS-2) on 'Valuation of inventories'.4. We do not go further than the decision of CIT v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. : [1984]149ITR759(Mad) against which a Special Leave Petition was preferred which was dismissed. In the said case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. (supra), the Division Benc...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sudesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ641Del; 2009(2)SLJ266(Delhi)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 677/1999 dated, February 12, 2008 challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated July 30, 1998. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award of the Tribunal.2. The appellant before us is Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA'). One Rajinder Kumar, who was an employee of the appellant-DDA, expired on April 3, 1990. After his death, his widow Kailashwati applied to DDA for appointment of his son Sudesh Kumar on compassionate ground with the DDA. The application came to be rejected on the ground that at the time of his death, late Rajinder Kumar was working on work charged basis and thus he had no right of employment with DDA.On dispute being raised by the Municipal Employees Union, the Secretary (Labour) referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:Whether Sh. Sudesh Kumar is entitled to appointment on compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »