Delhi Court February 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs. Insilco Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)641; [2010]321ITR322(Delhi); [2009]179TAXMAN55(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the judgment dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 626/Del/2004 and ITA No. 16/Del/2004 filed by the Appellant/Revenue and Respondent/assessee respectively pertaining to assessment year 2000-01.2. The Revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] allowing deduction on account of provision made by the assessee in the sum of Rs 47,15,782/- in respect of amounts payable to its employees on account of 'Long Service Award'.2.1 The assessee, on the other hand, had preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) in rejecting its claim of depreciation amounting to Rs 35,41,123/- on emergency/insurance spares valued at Rs 1,41,64,495/- in its books of accounts.2.2 The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, rejected the appeal o...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)72; [2009]316ITR141(Delhi); [2009]179TAXMAN44(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Admit.2. The following substantial questions of law arise for determination in this set of eleven appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'):(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is in the nature of penalty and is not compensatory?(2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, in deleting the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?3. These appeals pertain to two Assessees - Anand Prakash and Maha Maya General Finance Ltd. The appeals pertaining to the Assessee Anand Prakash arise out of the common order dated 20-04-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA Nos 3424, 3425, 3432, 3433, 3434 and 3435/Del/2005 pertaining to the Assessment years 1990-...

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)230CTR(Del)199; [2009]315ITR255(Delhi); [2009]181TAXMAN249(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These are appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') preferred by the assessee against the Judgment dated 22.04.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 2349/Del/03 and ITA No. 1573/Del/04 pertaining to Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.2. The only issue which arose for consideration of the authorities below was as to the treatment which was to be accorded to the interest earned on monies received as share capital by the assessee which were temporarily put in a fixed deposit awaiting acquisition of land which had run into legal entanglements on account of title. The Assessing Officer had treated the interest received by the assessee in respect of the aforementioned two years as 'income from other sources', whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] had accepted the stand of the assessee tha...

The Singer Company Limited and anr. Vs. Chetan Machine Tools and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT135

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The Singer Company Limited and Singer India Limited are the plaintiffs before me. They claim that plaintiff No. 1 is the largest and most successful sewing machine company. It manufactures and sells sewing machines besides other variety of goods in around 150 countries including India under the trademark 'Singer' which is registered in India since the year 1942 and that plaintiff No. 2 is an affiliate of plaintiff No. 1 and is a licensed user of its trademark. Based on these averments, plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants who are manufacturing and selling Milling Machines, on the allegation that they have adopted the trademark 'Singer' which is deceptively similar to their trademark in colour scheme and font and consequently, they are infringing their trademark and are also passing off their goods by riding on their piggy back. Hence, they have prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the ...

Milestone Gears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT122

Siddharth Mridul, J.1. By way of the present writ petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 19th January, 2009 issued by Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI)-Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner cancelling the contract of sale of land and building with the Petitioner, as well as the sale of the same to Respondent No. 2.2. IFCI issued advertisement in the 'Economics Times' dated 12th December, 2008 to invite tender bids for the sale of assets of one VHEL Industries Ltd. under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SRFAESI Act'). The sealed tenders were for the sale of assets of said VHEL Industries Ltd., offered as a composite unit on 'as is where is and whatever there is basis' at Village Harraipur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The relevant clauses of the terms and conditions of the said tender are as follows:2.4 The assets offered for sale may be inspected at the...

Director of Income-tax Vs. Galileo International Inc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN357(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Galileo International Inc. Ltd. ('respondent herein') is a company incorporated under the laws of US. It is thus a resident of USA. It carries on the business of maintaining and operating the system for providing electronic global distribution of services to airlines, hotels, and tour and cab operators by connecting to travel agents utilizing a Computerized Reservation System (CRS). This CRS, inter alia includes a system which receives, processes, stores and disseminates data about flight schedules, seat/room availability, fare information and provision for booking capabilities etc. The respondent has same business activities in India as well.2. As noted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its impugned judgments, there are six players in the business, namely the passenger or the traveller, the travel agents, Interglobc i.e., respondent's agent in India, Sita and other travel agencies, the respondent herein and the airlines. In this behalf, the respondent has entere...

Delhi Labour Union Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ423Del

ORDER1. The Delhi Labour Union has filed the present Public Interest Litigation impugning the order dated April 30, 2004 passed by District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, the respondent No. 2 transferring industrial dispute cases from the Labour Court presided over by Mr. D.K. Malhotra and Mr. S.S. Handa to the Labour Court of Ms. Deepa Sharma. It is submitted that the order of transfer is contrary to law and conflicts with the scheme of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). It is stated that the Act creates entirely separate, distinct and sui genesis system of administration of justice in matters relating to industrial disputes. It is submitted that it is only the 'Appropriate Government' which has power and authority to refer industrial disputes to Labour Courts, Tribunals and other adjudicatory bodies constituted under the Act. On the basis of the provisions including Section 33B(1) of the Act it is submitted that the respondent No. 2 does not hav...

Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)521

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule DB.2. Counsel for the respondent states that she wants to take instructions.3. List for directions on 13th March, 2009.CM No. 2320 of 2009 (stay)4. Notice which is accepted by learned Counsel for the respondents.5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the returns for the year 2005-06 filed by the petitioner declared total income of Rs. 46,41,070 while the assessment order in respect of the said year assessed the income at Rs. 1,67,02,35,990 which is almost 350 times the returned income. The same is stated to be on account of two additions made. The first addition of Rs. 1,46,55,94,922 is on account of alleged unaccounted sales while a sum of Rs. 20,00,00,000 is on account of cash credits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this alleged unaccounted sales have also been added as income in the hands of sister concerns and insofar as cash credits are concerned the details of the PAN of the assess...

Anjani Kumar Goenka and anr. Vs. Goenka Institute of Education and Res ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi1992; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)547

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiffs (IA No. 15242/2008) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC as well as application filed by defendant (IA No. 307/2009) under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for vacation of injunction granted to the plaintiffs restraining the defendant, its agents, representatives, assignors from offering its service in the field of education, under the trade mark, 'Goenka' or its school, 'goenka Public School', 'goenka Girls College' and 'Goenka Girls College'.2. Brief facts are that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for infringement of trade marks and passing off and damages etc. against the defendant.3. It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff No. 1 is a noted businessman with experience of over two decades in the field of imparting education, real estate, travel, tourism and Plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the f...

Kishori Lal Sudesh Kumar Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant was granted finance by OP No. 1 for purchase of CEILO car. Total cost of the car was Rs. 5,05,060 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 76,060 as margin money to the OP No. 2 which included charges for registration and insurance of the vehicle. On receipt of the remaining sale consideration from the OP No. 1, the OP No. 2 delivered the car to the complainant on 38.3.1997 with registration number written on the number plate as HR-51-A-9782. The only two documents handed over to the complainant were an Invoice No. 040110701 and a warranty and Service Book No. 23994. The invoice was surprisingly dated 31.12.1996. The warranty book contained particulars which were over-written and even the number was entered by hand on the first warranty card and the page on that car appears to be a photocopy format. 2. There was no defect either mechanically or otherwise in the car and the chassis number, engine number, key number, etc. tallied with those ...