Delhi Court February 2009 Judgments

Asian Center for Organization Research and Development Vs. Deputy Dire ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN175(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Writ Petition is vehemently opposed by Ms. P.L. Bansal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the revenue, on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel the assessee can still move the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) [in short 'DIT(E)'] for appropriate relief.2. As in other cases, heard and decided by us, we note a threat in the letter dated 10-2-2009 to the effect that in case of non-compliance of the aforesaid instalment plan, the whole of the payment shall be recoverable without any further notice. The instalment plan is for an initial payment of Rs. 25 lakhs and a monthly payment of Rs. 20 lakhs thereafter.3. We have perused Instruction No. 1914, dated 2-12-1993 as well as Instruction No. 96, dated 21-8-1969 issued by the CBDT. We find that even in Instruction No. 1914 the higher authority would have to consider exceptional circumstances such as unreasonably high-pitched assessment or where the assessm...

Amrit Lal Seth Vs. Seth Hotels (P.) Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

Reported in: 2009(95)SCL161(CLB-NEWDELHI)

1. The petitioner holding 100 shares and claiming to be entitled to 20 per cent shares in M/s. Seth Hotels Private Limited has filed this petition alleging that by issue and allotment of further shares, his percentage shareholding of 20 per cent has come down to an insignificant percentage and as such has sought for cancellation of issue and allotment of all the shares impugned in the petition. He has filed an application CA 364/2008 seeking for tagging this petition with CP 86/2006 filed by another shareholder on the same set of allegations. The respondents have filed CA 363/2008 challenging the maintainability of the petition in terms of section 399. 2. The facts of the case are that the company was a family company incorporated in 1993 with the petitioner and four of his brothers being the signatories to the memorandum and subscribing to 100 equity shares each of Rs. 10. Thus, each held 20 per cent shares in the company. The paid-up capital remained as Rs. 5,000 till 26-8-2000. The ...

Jaswant Singh Vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur Kohli

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT537; (2009)155PLR9

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as null and void and thereafter cancellation of the sale deed dated 23rd January 2008 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant at the Sub Registrar's Office vide Registration No. 422, Additional Book No. 1 Vol. 877, Pages 109 to 114.2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the value of the property transferred by the virtue of the sale deed was Rs. 85 lac and out of that Rs. 25 lac was the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and Rs. 60 lac was to be paid in cash by the defendant by the same evening. He took the plea that the defendant played foul play and did not hand over the cash and also did not hand over the cheques as mentioned in the sale deed. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 85 lacs but for the purpose of court fees, he has not valued the suit and stated that the Court...

Vijay JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN72(Delhi)

ORDER1. Heard.2. Admit.3. The following substantial questions of law are framed:1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in respect of g alleged unexplained investment in property of Rs. 10,38,000 under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged unexplained deposit in the bank accounts of the appellant, his wife and his daughter aggregating to Rs. 6,01,983?3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining an addition of Rs. 62,000 on account of unexplained expenditure on account of purchase of car by taking the figures from appellant's cash book, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer has treated the appellant's cash book as genuine?4. Insofar as proposed Question No. 1 is concerned, we are of the opinion that no ques...

Sh. M.K. Mahajan and anr. Vs. Indo Rollhard Industries Private Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]150CompCas673(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This Company Petition under Sections 433(c), 433(e) & 433(f) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act), has been filed to seek the winding up of the Respondent Company namely M/s Indo Roll Hard Industries Ltd. (the Company).2. The petitioners have primarily urged the following grounds to seek the relief as sought in this petition:(i) That the respondent Company is indebted to the petitioner No. 1 personally to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- advanced as loan, and the Company is unable to pay the said sum despite the Statutory Notice, and is thus liable to be wound up under Section 433(e) of the Act. I may note that in the Company Petition the petitioners had alleged that the respondent company owes an amount of Rs. 59,06,780/- to petitioner No. 1 and various companies under his ownership and control. However, at the time of arguments, with a view to avoid getting into disputed issues, the petitioners have sought to highlight the amount ...

indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Prakash Gautam and Ano ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned Order dated 15.5.2008 whereby the appellant was directed to reimburse the entire medical expenses incurred by respondent No. l, under the scheme, of which he was a member, is that the respondent was well aware of the fact that as per his pay scale he was entitled for semi-private ward whereas he intentionally availed of an A/C single room and further that in spite of having written so many letters the respondent failed to provide the bill and details of surgical instruments which were purchased by him from open market 2. The case of the respondent leading to the impugned Order in brief were that the respondent No. 1 was working with the appellant as Assistant Controller and took VRS on 31.10.2003. He suffered from Post-traumatic Non-union Intra Capsular with Post-traumatic Knee Stiffness and on 23.11.2006 he got himself admitted in respondent No. 2 hospital for treatment and remained there for ten...

Mayawati Vs. Cit (Central-i) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)117; 157(2009)DLT324; [2010]321ITR249(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition assails the legality of proceedings initiated by the Respondents under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act for short) on the premise that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter AO) has reason to believe that income of the Petitioner, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. In such an event, Section 148 of the IT Act requires the AO to serve the Petitioner with a Notice requiring her to furnish a Return of her income. It is mandated by Section 149 of the IT Act that this Notice must be issued within six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (which in this case is 2001-2002) since the income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rupees one lakh or more for that year. The prayers in the Petition are for quashing (a) the Notice dated 25.3.2008 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act; (b) the Notices dated 25.6.2008 and 3.11.2008 issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act; and (c) the Ord...

Management of Electric Control Switchboards Vs. Presiding Officer and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ426Del

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an award dated 31.3.1986, passed in ID No. 78/80 by the Labour Court No. I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is the petitioner's case that the decision of the Labour Court to the effect that the management has illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the workmen and ordering their reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages, is perverse and has occasioned a failure of justice of a nature warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court.2. A reference was made by the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration, to the Labour Court, for adjudication of a labour dispute in the following terms;Whether the removal from service of the workmen S/Shri Sushil Kumar and Mallu is legal/justified and, if not, what directions are necessary in this behalf.3. In their statement of claim, the workmen, Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Mallu, subm...

Shri Harbhajan Singh Vs. Airports Authority of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ431Del

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. Shri Harbhajan Singh is an electrical engineer. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He was appointed on probation as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), National Airports Division in its Project Division at Goa. He was thereafter transferred to Srinagar Airport. At Srinagar, on 27th June, 1997, his services were terminated. His termination letter reads as follows:The Competent Authority has decided that the services of Sh. Harbhajan Singh AEE(E), (on probation) at Srinagar Airport be terminated with immediate effect as per para 4 and 5 of the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment.He has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, praying that aforesaid order of termination dated 27th June, 1997 be quashed and that the respondents be directed to re-instate him with all consequential benefits.2. He contends that after repeated representations were ignored by the respondents, he moved the Chairman, Na...

U.A.E. Exchange Centre Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Del)250; [2009]183TAXMAN495(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the advance ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income-tax), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') dt. 26th May, 2004 passed in AAR No. 608 of 2003 [reported as UAE Exchange Centre LLC, In re (2004) 189 CTR (AAR) 467- Ed.] pursuant to an application made by the petitioner under Section 245Q(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In the application filed under Section 245Q(1) of the Act by the petitioner before the Authority, it had sought an advance ruling by the Authority with respect to the following question:Whether any income is accrued/deemed to be accrued in India from the activities carried out by the company in India ?2.1 The aforesaid question was posed by the writ petitioner in the background of the following facts as stated in its application to the Authority.2.2 The petitioner is a limited liability company incorporated in the United Arab Emirate...