Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Guardian Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)526; [2009]177TAXMAN434(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3224/Del/2005 in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. Before the Tribunal the Revenue as well as the assessee, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26.04.2005 [hereinafter referred to in short as the 'CIT(A)'].2. The Revenue being aggrieved has preferred the present appeal and proposed the following questions of law for consideration of this Court:(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing deduction of export commission of Rs. 10,07,22,625/- to the assessee Under Section 37(1) of the Act?(b) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law when it allowed deduction to the assessee of export commission ignoring the relevant facts recorded by the Assessing Off...

Sh. Puneet Chandna Vs. Sanjay Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT43

Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner contended that he entered into a partnership agreement for running the business under the name and style of M/s. Unigenetics Inc having registered office at C-1/121, First Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The share of the plaintiff was 55% whereas the share of the respondent was 45%. According to the petitioner, the partnership was dissolved and a deed of dissolution dated 6th January, 2007 was executed which was duly signed by the parties.2. It is asserted by the petitioner that few days after the execution and singing of deed of dissolution, the respondent along with his brother, Mr. Rajiv Jain started threatening the petitioner and his wife. According to the petitioner, in gross violation of the terms of dissolution, the respondent has illegally, wrongfully and fraudulently transferred Rs. 1824/- to one Mr. Prabhjeet Singh. The respondent al...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Behl Construction and Aravali Aluminium ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(162)LC110(Delhi); (2009)21VST261(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In these appeals under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the following substantial questions of law arise for our consideration:1. Where on the expiry of time specified in Section 74(7) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 the Commissioner has not exercised either of the options set out in Section 74(7)(a) or 74(7)(b), whether the objection pending before the commissioner shall be deemed to be allowed?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in providing a mandatory period of eight months, within which the Commissioner has to dispose of the objection pending before him under Section 74(7) of DVAT Act, particularly, when no such stipulation is provided by the statute?2. In STA 12/2008 (Behl Construction), the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by virtue of the its decision dated 24.04.2008 in Appeal No. 402/ATVAT/06-07, though it decided against the deal...

Mr. Suresh Sharma Vs. New Coolwell Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4031; 159(2009)DLT249; (2009)156PLR24

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The appellant in this matter is aggrieved by the order passed by a Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16.03.2006 whereby, he dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant, by holding that the complaint filed by the appellant in his personal capacity cannot be treated as a complaint by M/s. Jiya Lal Sumair Chand Jain, the payee of the cheques in question. The relevant portion of the order subject matter of the appeal is reproduced for the sake of the understanding the matter.9. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused their written as well as oral submissions. The perusal of the cheques Ex.CW1/2 and Ex. CW1/3 shows that the cheques have been issued by the accused No. 1 in favour of M/s. Jiya Lal Sumair Chand Jain and the same were presented for encashment to the banker of the firm and returned back unpaid vide Debit Advise Ex.CW2/1 & Ex.CW2/2. The document Ex.CW1/1 relied upon by the complainant during the examination of the CW1 shows that M/s...

Satbir Singh and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT123

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The aforesaid writ petition arises out of a dispute which arose between the two factions one led by the petitioner No. 1 and the other led by Sh. Jaipal at whose instance FIR No. 78/2008 (Second FIR) under Sections 147/148/149/323 IPC registered at P.S. Anand Parbat against petitioner No. 1 and some other persons, petitioner No. 1 is the author of FIR No. 77/2008 (First FIR)under Sections 147/148/149/323/435 IPC registered earlier at the same police station in respect of the same incident which occurred in the midnight of 5/6th June, 2008.2. The grievance made by the petitioner is slapping of provisions under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act) after more than 48 hours of the registration of FIR No. 78/2008 on the basis of an additional complaint made by 24 person in writing to the senior officials of the police and recording of the statement under Section ...

Thirani Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)52; [2009]180TAXMAN474(Delhi)

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. On 24-2-2006, the following three substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:1. Whether the appellant/assessee can rely upon the orders passed by the Tribunal previously after having made a concession before the Tribunal that the case in hand could be decided on merits independent of any such previous decisions?2. Whether the Tribunal could have disagreed with the decision rendered earlier by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in relation to another assessment year in the light of the concession made by the parties?3. Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expansion of the production capacity of the petitioners unit would not constitute setting up of an industrial undertaking eligible for the benefits of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Income-tax Act?2. With regard to Question Nos. 1 and 2, there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Division Bench. Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur...

Rashima Verma Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]95SCL1(Delhi)

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 15.12.2003 in complaint case No. 1231/2003 titled 'Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Divyabhoomi Agro (I) Ltd. and Ors.', as director of the company, in view of the violation under Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI Act') by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. M/s. Divyabhoomi Agro (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was operating Collective Investment Schemes (hereinafter referred to as 'CIS') at the time of coming into force of SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 and raised an aggregate amount of Rs. 8,26,800/- from the general public. The company filed details with Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) regarding its CIS, pursuant to SEBI press release dated 26.11.1997 and public notice dated 18.12.1997. As per the regulations, any person, who had been operating CIS at the ti...

Mrs. PravIn Bahl Vs. Office of Secretary Labour and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)121CTR(Del)360; 157(2009)DLT496; [2009(121)FLR360]; (2009)IIILLJ21Del

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Stenographer by respondent No. 2 Management with effect from 21.10.1980 initially on probation for a period of one year. The appellant claims that the appointment letter itself indicated that the probation period could be extended only if her work was not found to be satisfactory. The appellant had to be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month and on confirmation, the salary was to be enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per month. The probation period was extended for the appellant on expiry of one year up to 30.04.1982 whereafter her services were terminated.2. The appellant was aggrieved by the termination of her services as it is her case that she was active in Union activity and the Marketing Manager under whom she was working had misbehaved with her since she refused to yield to his wishes. The dispute between the workman and the Management was referred by the Secretary, Delhi Administration under Section 10 of the Ind...

Management of Horticulture/Forest Department, Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT623; [2009(121)FLR504]

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity and correctness of Award dated 29.7.2000 passed by Shri G.P. Mittal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court - III whereby directions were given to the petitioner management to reinstate respondent No. 2 workman in the service with 50% backwages and continuity of service.2. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the workman is governed by the Central Civil Services and Central Conduct Rules, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference referred by the then Delhi Administration and the appropriate Forum to entertain the grievance of the respondent workman is the Central Administrative Tribunal which alone had the jurisdiction to try and entertain the disputes raised by the respondent workman. The other ground of challenge taken in the present petition is that the servic...

indo American Com. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant company is carrying on the business of Full Fledged Money Changer (FFMC) under Licence No. FFMC.EC.DEL/41/95 granted by the Reserve Bank of India. On expressing interest by the complainant of getting its day-to-day business risk relating to transaction of money changing, the opposite party (in short O.P)-Insurance Company vide its letter dated 12th November, 2001 offered a comprehensive premium rates and salient features of the policies through which they intended to cover the risks according to the complainants needs. The complainant vide its letter dated 5th December, 2001categorically requested for inclusion of two features in the policy particularly coverage of risk of forged and dishonoured cheques/pay order / drafts / credit cards and other banking instruments as it was a specific and categorical requirement of the complainant company to get such risks covered in the policy. Accordingly the complainant filled a proposal form issue...