Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cit Vs. D.S. Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN153(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Admit. The following questions, as have been proposed on behalf of the Revenue in this Appeal, are framed:a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in treating the amount of Rs. 15,07,644/- received by the assessee from J&K; Bank Ltd. as 'Business Income' and not 'Income from Other Sources'? (b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in treating the amount of Rs. 52,80,000/- received by the assessee from Total Care(India) Pvt. Ltd. as 'Business Income' and not 'Income From Other Sources'? (c) Whether ITAT was justified in law in treating the receipt of Rs. 51,00,000/- from Shivalik Tyres Limited as 'Business Income' and not 'Income from Other Sources'? 2. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) assails the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT to the effect that the rental income received by the Assessee from J&K; Bank Limited in respect of its property at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was business income; that the income received by the As...
Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr.of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT276; 2009(165)LC105(Delhi); [2009]21STT5
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The question which we are called upon to decide on the threshold of these proceedings is whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction over the challenge made to the Orders dated 1.5.2008 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. Preliminary Objections have been raised on behalf of the Respondents pertaining to the relative lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. As the array of parties manifests, the Appellant operates from Plot No. 54-55, Parsakhera Industrial Estate, Parsakhera, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh where it had installed the capital goods imported by it. It had availed of CENVAT credit during the period from November, 2004 to March, 2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.3.2006. After adjudication the Commissioner confirmed the demand and directed recovery of CENVAT of Rupees 1,64,08,716/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with...
Sh. K.L. Sethi Vs. Sh. S. Kishan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT464; (2009)155PLR591
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff seeks modification of the order dated 6th April, 2009 to the extent directing the plaintiff to furnish undertaking to this Court to, in the event of failing in his case for specific performance, pay to the defendant the difference of the admitted agreed price of Rs. 1,82,50,000/- and Rs. 2.50 crores which was disclosed by the counsel for the plaintiff himself on 6th April, 2009 to be the present market value of the property. 2. The said order was made because in this case, the plaintiff, out of agreed sale consideration of Rs. 1,82,50,000/- has paid only Rs. 10 lacs to the defendant. The written agreement to sell dated 4th July, 2007 provides that the balance Rs. 1,72,50,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within 90 days of 4th July, 2007; that the defendant shall execute sale deed/document in favour of the plaintiff at the time of receiving full consideration and also deliver vacant, peaceful, physical possession of property and...
Sri Kishan Vs. Shri Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT470
Anil Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the above-noted suit for partition of the properties mentioned in Annexure A & B to the plaint, a declaration that the sale of the properties mentioned in Annexure C of the plaint is null and void and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 5 restraining them from creating any third party interests in the plaintiff's share of the properties mentioned in Annexure A and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff of the properties mentioned in Annexure B. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are as follow:(a) Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No. 1 to 5, their representative, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th portion of all the property as mentioned in Annexure -A along with the plaint;(b) Pass a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No. 1 to 5 and their representatives, as...
Harish Ahuja Vs. S.P. Minocha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT551
Veena Birbal, J.1. Respondent/landlord had let out shop bearing No. 6, ground floor F-14/20, Model Town-II, Delhi to petitioner/tenant for non-residential purpose. On 14.8.2001, respondent/landlord had filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') bearing No. E-118/2001 against respondent/landlord seeking eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The said petition was disposed of by learned Addl. Rent Controller vide order dated 16th November, 2002 directing the petitioner/tenant to pay the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st September, 2000 uptil the date after adjusting the amount which he had already paid or deposited in compliance of order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. It was further observed that as it was a case of first default and in the event of petitioner/tenant complying with the order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act, he shall be entitled to the protective umbrella of Section 14(2) of...
Indian Institute of Planning and Management Vs. Outlook Publishing (In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)155PLR41
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Both these applications are taken up for disposal together by this common order.2. The plaintiff is conducting academic courses in national economic planning and entrepreneurship under the name and style of 'The Indian Institute of Planning & Management' (IIPM) since 1974. It is stated that the plaintiff has eight centres all over India at various places, i.e. Delhi, Bombay, Pune, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Chennai, Bangalore and Gurgaon. The plaintiff is stated to have over 550 faculty members and staff at present.3. The defendant No. 1 is the publisher Company of weekly magazine 'Outlook' defendant No. 2 is the editor-in-chief of the said weekly magazine and defendant No. 3 is the publisher and author of the article impugned in the present suit. Defendant No. 4 is the printer of the weekly magazine 'Outlook' in which the impugned article is printed, published and circulated.4. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking a decree of a mandatory and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›