Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Dev Kumar JaIn Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]309ITR240(Delhi); [2009]180TAXMAN110(Delhi)

C.M. No. 17845/2008 (for early hearing) in I.T.A. No. 47/20031. In this application the appellant/applicant has stated that on account of old age and health issues he is not in a position to actively monitor the pending litigation and in order to bring the matter to a closure he prays that the appeal be taken up for hearing.2. We find that the application for early hearing is accompanied by an affidavit which discloses that the appellant is more than 77 years of age. Given the fact he has averred that he is not keeping well and wants to bring the litigation to a final closure, we allow the application. The application is accordingly disposed of.I.T.A. No. 47/20033. By an order dated October 14, 2003, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following question of law:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the actual sale consideration recorded in the agreement to sell of the asset and received by the assessee could be substituted by the value as...

Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly a personal loan of Rs. 22,000 was sanctioned to the respondent by the appellant on 18.1.2007. According to the respondent he was assured that the loan would be disbursed at a monthly interest @ 2% for a period of two years against payment of Rs. 1,125 each EMI for a period of 24 months. However, later on he claimed to know that he has been asked to pay 36 EMIs of Rs. 1,125 each. On having been cheated he filed the instant complaint. The appellant was proceeded ex parte and vide impugned order dated 3.9.2009, District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent in the following terms: (i) To accept the loan amount of Rs. 22,000 under personal loan account No. 10820459 in 24 EMIs at Rs. 1,125 each. (ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant. (iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Though the appellant was proceeded ex p...

Smt. Pushpa Saroha Vs. Shri Mohinder Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT425

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The defendants have challenged the very maintainability owing to the bar of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, and which is for consideration.2. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff herein along with the defendant No. 4 herein as plaintiff No. 1 for the relief of partition of agricultural land ad-measuring 6.75 acres in Village Auchandi, Delhi and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said land. In the plaint as original filed it was the case that Shri Nand Ram Verma being the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 2 and 4 (who was then the plaintiff No. 1) and the grandfather of the defendant No. 3 was the owner of the said land; that after the demise of the said Shri Nand Ram Verma, in or about 1996 there was a settlement amongst the plaintiff, defendants No. 1,2,4 and the father of the defendant No. 3 as well as the widow of the said Shri Nand Ram Verma whereby all the family members agreed that the pr...

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - Ii Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)36; [2009]178TAXMAN491(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Mr. Jolly, who appears on behalf of the appellant, has produced the record pertaining to the issuance of warrants of authorization as well as their execution and the panchnamas which have been drawn in this case.2. The record indicates that the Director Income Tax (Investigation) issued a warrant of authorization in Form 45 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and Rule 112 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules') to, inter alia, the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Mr A. K. Singh) as also to Assistant Directors of Income Tax (Investigation) [Mr L. K. Aggarwal, Mr. Ajay, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. S. Bose, Mr. K. C. Badhang, Mr. P. K. Mishra (DCIT) and Mr. Rajiv Kumar]. This warrant of authorization was issued on 25.05.2000 and was in respect of the premises at B-256, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-92. A panchnama was drawn upon on 25.05.2000 itself and a restraint...

Shri Kishan Lal Chhabra Vs. Shri Anil Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT779; (2009)154PLR18

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for passing a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell of immovable property, forthwith is for consideration.2. The agreement to sell dated 27th February, 2004 of Industrial Shed No. C-25, DSIDC, Industrial Complex, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, New Delhi by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is not in dispute. As per the said agreement, out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs. 68 lacs, the plaintiff paid Rs. 12 lacs to the defendant at the time of agreement to sell, a sum of Rs. 25 lacs was agreed to be paid on or before 5th May, 2004 against the defendant handing over the peaceful, vacant and physical possession of the property and executing and registering a deed of sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 31 lacs was agreed to be paid within a period of one year from the date of payment of Rs. 25 lacs, in easy installments...

Radhika Narang and ors. Vs. Kuldeep Narang and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT637

Manmohan, J.1. The Appellant daughter-in-law has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed in Suit No. 1225 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while deciding a preliminary issue has held that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the father-in-law (defendant No. 2/respondent No. 1 herein) and has deleted him from the array of parties.2. Learned Single Judge while reaching the above conclusion has held that by virtue of Sections 18 and 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'said Act'), a daughter-in-law during the life time of her husband had no right to seek maintenance from her father-in-law and further in view of Section 4 of the said Act, the Old Customary Law which entitled a wife to seek maintenance from co-parcenary property was no longer available. The learned Single Judge concluded that the question of defendant No. 2/respondent No. 1 herein being 'karta' or his obligation t...

Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Ikea Trading Hong Kong Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)215; 157(2009)DLT665; [2009]179TAXMAN309(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J1. These seven appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on 24.04.2005 in ITA Nos. 35 to 41/Del/2003 pertaining to the financial years 1987-88 to 1993-94. The substantial question of law which arises for our consideration is as follows:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the penalty order dated 16.03.2000 was passed beyond the time prescribed by Section 275(1)(c), the same having been passed more than six months from the end of the month in which the show cause notices were issued. 2. The assessee/respondent is a company incorporated in Japan and has a liaison office in India. A survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said ac...

Mange Lal Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT578

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellants have filed these appeals assailing the judgment dated 22.7.2002 and order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant Mange Lal has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, while the other two appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and to undergo three years imprisonment under Section 498-A/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Since both the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment of the trial Court they were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common judgment.2. At the outset the facts of the case which led to the prosecution of the three appellants-accused need to be noticed. Sushila (the deceased) was married to PW-8 Ram S...

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -ii Vs. Capital Power Systems ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)47

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The only issue sought to be raised in the present appeal is whether the Joint Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Unit-VII, New Delhi was empowered to issue the warrant of authorization for search and seizure operations under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). In a separate decision delivered by us today itself in the case of CIT v. Pawan Kumar Garg ITA 881/2008, we held that there is no notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes specifically empowering any Joint Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to authorize action under Section 132(1) of the said Act. We also held that the notification issued on 11.10.1990 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes empowering certain specified Deputy Directors of Income-tax (Investigation) and Deputy Commissioners would not, by virtue of the mere re-designation of Deputy Directors of Income-tax as Joint Directors of Income-tax, as per notification dated 23....

Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur Vs. Shri G.S. Bhatia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT654

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Issues No. 1 as under framed on 22nd August, 2008 and ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue, falls for adjudication.1. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit and whether the suit is liable to be returned to the plaintiff' OPD 2. The suit is for the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell and purchase dated 9th September, 2005. As per the averments in the plaint, the said agreement was for a total sale consideration of Rs. 16,40,000/- out of which the plaintiff claims to have paid part sale consideration of Rs. 3,57,000/- prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff, besides the relief of specific performance claimed in prayer paras (a) and (b) also claims alternate relief in prayer para (c) of the plaint. In the light of the arguments addressed by the counsel for the plaintiff, it is deemed expedient to set out herein below the prayer paragraph (c) of the plaint. 'In the event this Hon'ble Court comes ...