Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tony Electronics Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)364; [2010]321ITR378(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN121(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. An interesting question of law relating to the limitation of correcting error under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') arises in this appeal. The issue is: from which date the period of limitation provided under Section 154 of the Act is to be reckoned.2. The assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24.11.1998 framing the income at Rs. 8.77 crores. While doing so, the AO had made various additions, which were not palatable to the respondent/assessee. The respondent/assessee filed appeal against that order. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), vide his order dated 20.5.1999, gave partial relief to the assessee. The matter had gone to the CIT (A) again and, therefore, order recording appeal effects had to be passed three times. The relevant dates in this behalf are tabulated as under:24.11.1998 - Assessment under Section 143(3) was completed.20.5.1999 - Appeal against assessm...

Digember JaIn Society for Child Welfare Vs. Director General of Income ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)517; [2009]185TAXMAN255(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is filed by Digember Jain Society for Child Welfare (Regd.), with the following prayers:(i) Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order of direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned order dated 28.4.2008;(ii) Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India declaring the order dated 28.4.2008 as illegal and directing the stay of operation of the order dated 28.4.2008 and all consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid order;(iii) Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order of direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order of Direction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the respondent to allow exemption Under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to the petitioner society;(iv) W...

Climate Systems India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]319ITR113(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The applicant-company (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), engaged in the manufacturing and sale of heat exchangers, (radiators) entered into 'technical collaboration agreement' with Ford Motor Company, USA to manufacture 'controlled atmosphere brazed aluminum heat exchangers (radiators)' with the technology owned by Ford Company, USA. According to the appellant, it was already in the business of manufacturing of radiators since 1992, and the said technical collaboration agreement was entered into for the purpose of the upgrading and manufacturing of radiators of new technology. Under the said agreement, the appellant was permitted to be a mere user of the technology regarding the manufacturing of upgraded radiators for which the appellant was obliged to make lump sum payment of US$1 million to Ford Motor Company, USA which was capitalized in the appellant's books of account. Under the same agreement, the appellant was obliged to pay royalty at 3 per cent. of d...

Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prabha Shah

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

M.L. Sahni, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum-VII, Shaikh Sarai, New Delhi whereby the appellant have been directed to pay to the complainant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) a sum of Rs. 50,000 as cost of painting, Rs. 6,000 towards cost of packing and forwarding charges and Rs. 30,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and suffering. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, precisely stated, are that the respondent who is deaf by birth is an expert painter having held 25 solo exhibitions of her paintings in India and abroad; whose works have been recognized throughout the world and her paintings had been displayed in the Rashtrapati Bhawan as well. According to the respondent her paintings have market value ranging between Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,50,000. She sent one of such paintings on 29.3.2007 to her overseas buyer, namely, Mr. Ben Thancanamootoo in U.K. through the appellant vide consignment note No. 54898515. It i...

Garhwal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd Vs. Registrar Cooperativ ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT696

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents today. This is despite the fact that all the respondents have been served, as indicated in the order dated 18.08.2009, whereby, in the presence of the Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 6, this Court had directed that this matter be listed in the category of Regular Matters as per its own turn. In these circumstances, we have thought it fit to hear the learned Counsel for the petitioner and to decide this matter on the basis of arguments advanced by him and the material already on record. This is an old matter of 1990.2. We may also note that in the first instance when this matter was taken up by this Court on 09.07.1990, the same was dismissed in limine. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being SLP (C) No. 12153/1990 which was admitted and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 5633/1990. The ...

Mittal Estates Private Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT99

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This objection petition has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raising various objections to the award dated 20.11.1996 of the Arbitrator. I am proceeding with the judgment in as much as the Counsel for the DDA had argued yesterday and today and neither yesterday nor today the Counsel for the non-objector is available. Accordingly, I have no option but to decide the case on merits in as much as Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocate, appearing as the Counsel for the non-objector says that he is not in a position to argue the matter.2. Though DDA has raised many objections and many claims running into approximately around 40 in number, however, since except the claims which are discussed below most of the objections pertained to factual issues and therefore were not and could not be seriously pressed by the Counsel for the objector.3. That...

M.C.D. Vs. Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT1

Manmohan, J.1. Present objection petition has been filed by petitioner-MCD under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 19th January, 2004 and the Addendum dated 13th February, 2004 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice (Retd.) P.K. Jain.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that respondent-Claimant Company, M/s. Modern Foods Industries (India) Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, as it then was, had entered into four agreements dated 25th August, 1995, 12th September, 1996, 25th October, 1996 and 6th March, 1998 with petitioner-MCD for supply of bakery products, i.e. fruity bread, milk bread and glucose biscuits to the Municipal Schools and stores located in various zones. It is pertinent to mention that respondent-Company has been disinvested w.e.f. January, 2000 and has since been taken over by M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.3. Since the respondent-Company claimed that certain...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sh. Dharambir Singh S/O Sh. Ravi Dutt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT42

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The Delhi Transport Corporation in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 16.09.2003 in I.D. No. 142/1995 directing it to pay full back wages to the father of the deceased workman (Sh. Dharambir Singh) till the date of his death as removal of the workman from the service was held to be illegal.2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. Hence, I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner ex-parte. I have also perused the record of the Labour Court.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the deceased workman was employed as Safai Karamchari with the petitioner as daily wager w.e.f. 07.09.1982. He was regularised in service w.e.f. 03.04.1984. He was removed from the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.08.1987 after holding an inquiry against him for his alleged unauthorised absence of 147 days in the year 1986. The workman Sh. Dh...

Deepak Khosla and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 163(2009)DLT757

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, who appears in person, has been heard.2. The prayers made in the writ petition read as under:(a) To issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent No. 3 (Registrar of the Hon'ble High Court, acting as Secretary of its Rules Committee) to include in the Agenda of the very next meeting of the Rules Committee of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court a proposal for the amendment of the Delhi High Court Rules by way of incorporating detailed instructions within the body of the Rules on how vakalatnamas are to be executed, especially those relating to juristic entities.(b) To issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (acting through themselves or through their subordinate officers) that pending translation of prayer (a) into the relevant incorporation of the same into the body of the Delhi High Court Rules, to object to the filing any motion by any party in judicial proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court if the vakalatnama accompanying it has not been exec...

Major General A.K. Kapur, Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 163(2009)DLT606

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner joined the Army on 14.11.1971 and earned his promotions up to the rank of a Major General. The petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army Ordnance Corps (AOC) as per a Special Selection Board held on 05.11.2007.2. The result of this SSB was however withheld for over almost ten months and the petitioner aggrieved by the same filed WP(C) 6856/2008 praying for the de- classification of the results of the SSB with respect to the petitioner and to grant him promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General with all consequential benefits.3. On consideration of the writ petition and calling for records, it was found that just prior to the SSB , an FIR was registered by the CBI on 08.10.2007 on the basis of sourced information alleging that the petitioner had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and a raid was also carried out at the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that no...