Delhi Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aar Pee Apartments P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR276(Delhi); [2010]188TAXMAN39(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Admit.2. The following two substantial questions of law arise for consideration:(a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,69,881 made by the Assessing Officer and adopting the figure of cost of construction of Yusuf Sarai Project at Rs. 19,99,559 as against Rs. 39,69,440 declared by the asses-see ?(b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO for determining the cost of construction was not justified even after insertion of Section 142A by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, with retrospective effect from November 15, 1972 ?3. Learned Counsel for the parties are ready to argue. Accordingly, we heard the arguments.4. The assessee is a construction company. It had taken up three projects in the earlier years to the assessment year in question, i.e., 1998-99. These these projects are as Yusuf Sarai Project, Jaina Tower II and Jaina...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 183(2009)DLT658
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Atma Ram Gupta (hereinafter referred to the 'Deceased'), a member of the Indian National Congress, was a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, having been elected from Ward No. 27, Tri Nagar, Delhi, in the Elections held in February 2002.2. At 10:15 AM on 24.8.2002 he left his residence in an Indica Car bearing registration No. DL 6SA 0025 owned by him, which was driven by his driver Prabhu Yadav PW-17. While leaving the house he told his wife Sumitra Gupta PW-18, that he was going to attend a rally organized by the Congress Party at Firozshah Kotla Grounds Delhi.3. He did not return to his residence till late evening and could not be contacted on his mobile phone since the same was switched off. His wife got worried. She contacted the younger brothers of Atma Ram Gupta as also her children and apprised them of the situation. The children of Atma Ram Gupta as also his younger brothers came to his residence and made inquiries from persons who were in ...
Ashok Kamal Capital Builders Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT396
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. As identical issues arise for consideration, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 427/2005 filed by M/s. Ashok Kamal Capital Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2663/2005 filed by M/s. Dyer's Stone Lime Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Capital Builders and Dyer's Stone respectively, for short) are being disposed of this by this common judgment.2. Dyer's Stone purchased property No. 10, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (herein after referred to as the property, for short) from the erstwhile owners vide sale deed dated 3rd December, 1956.3. On 30th October, 1985 Dyer's Stone obtained permission from Delhi Administration (Land & Building Department) to develop the property as a group housing project. On 23rd December, 1987, Dyer's Stone entered into an agreement with the Capital Builders for development and construction of dwelling units. The dwelling units were constructed and sold to various third parties on execution of registered sale deeds. Requisite...
Mrs. Madhulika Srivastava and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT210
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a Petition seeking quashing of Award No. 6- B/Suppl./81-82, whereby land of the Petitioners, measuring 1bigha and 4 biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 288 Min. of Village Jasola, was acquired.2. It has been alleged in the Petition that the Petitioners purchased land in question from Ram Prasad, Mahesh Chand, Mehar Chand, Sat Pal and Satvir vide Registered Sale Deed, on the basis of a No Objection Certificate. issued by Additional District Magistrate (LA) Delhi. It was stated in No Objection Certificate that Notification No. F-4(9)64/L&H; dated 7.12.1966 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, had lapsed. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in respect of land in question was issued on 6.4.1964 followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Act on 7.12.1966. It has been claimed in the Petition that since notifications under Section 4 and 6 had lapsed, it was not within the power of the respondents to acquire land in question and the award whereb...
K.R.B.L. Limited Vs. Ramesh Bansal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC114(Del)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 27(2) of the Trademark Act, 1999 and under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages.2. The plaintiff's case, succinctly stated, is that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 5190, Lahori Gate, Delhi-110 006. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of processing, marketing and exporting of rice of various kinds, including Basmati rice. In the year 1993, the plaintiff through its predecessors, i.e., the partnership firm adopted the mark/label 'INDIA GATEwith the device 'INDIA GATE' in relation to the business of rice in India and has built up a valuable trade, goodwill and reputation thereunder. By an ...
Shri Pearey Lal S/O Shri Fateh Chand (Since Deceased Shri Ghansham Sha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT412
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 6th December, 2001 of Rent Control Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Delhi, vide which appeal of respondent No. 1 was allowed.2. Brief facts are that respondent No. 1, filed petition under Section 14(1)(j) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short as 'Act') in respect of a shop forming part of property No. 74/5, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. It was alleged in the petition that Pearey Lal (since deceased)-the tenant, unauthorizedly and illegally removed the walls as shown yellow in site plan. He also unauthorisedly constructed mezzanine in the shop as shown in red in site plan and also made an opening in the roof of the shop. He also made some encroachment upon the terrace of shop on which he had no right. The tenant caused substantial damage to the premises in question and changed entire identity of the shop. The estimate loss assessed by respondent No. 1 was Rs. 50,000/-.3. Eviction petition was contested by Pearey Lal (dece...
Prem Mahalwal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 176(2009)DLT465
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Ms. Prem Mahalwal seeks reimbursement of the medical treatment bills from the Government of NCT of Delhi. She suffered a stroke in April, 2006 and was referred to the Nephrology Department, Rockland Hospital, a private recognized hospital, by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Directorate of Health Service, Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner has placed on record the reference certificate issued by the CMO dated 19th April, 2006. The petitioner claims that the said reference certificate is valid and binding on the respondents as the CMO is the authorized medical attendant (AMA) for referral purposes. In this regard, counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to the Clause 10 (ii) of the office memorandum dated 25th October, 2007, which reads as under:ii. The authorized medical attendant (AMA) for referral pruposes will be the CMO/MO Incharge of the dispensary/hospital where the beneficiary is attached.2. The respondent have stated that...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 176(2009)DLT472
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on a complaint dated 16.8.1997 made by respondent No. 2, directing the petitioner/MTNL to remove the obstruction from the respondent No. 2's drive way and relocate the pillars of the junction boxes at a suitable place.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act') are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the three junction boxes in question have not been installed by the petitioner within the property of respondent No. 2 and rather, the same are on public land. He states that Section 17 of the Act can come to the aid of only such persons, who are aggrieved by the action of the petitioner of installing telegraph lines on the private property or the property with which, an aggrieved party intends to deal with in any manner. He submits that in the pr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)468; [2010]321ITR178(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Admit.2. Following question of law arises for consideration:Whether in view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the total debit balance including the consideration collectible by the assessee company for the sale/purchase of shares can be claimed by the assessee as bad debts when the assessee company had only credited brokerage in the P&L; a/c 3. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard at this stage itself on the paper book filed. Learned Counsel for both the parties have advanced their arguments in detail and we proceed to decide the question of law framed in the following manner.4. In the IT return filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 2001-02 the assessee declared income of Rs. 33,25,404. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. Statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was given and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the year. During the assessment AO found that the assessee had claimed bad debt in the su...
Madan Kukreja Vs. Banque Scalbert Dupont S.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT277
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This suit seeks a decree against the Defendant No. 1 for a sum of Euro 49,842/- along with pendente lite and future interest at 16.5% annum together with costs. The case of the Plaintiff 2. The Plaintiff describes himself as the Proprietor of a concern under the name and style of M/s Super Fashion, which is an exporter of garments. Its export destinations are claimed to be the United States of America (USA), Canada and Europe. The Plaintiff claims that the concern has acquired the status of a government recognized export house. Defendant No. 1 is a bank headquartered in France, having an office in Delhi. It is stated to be fully owned by the Credit Industriel et Commercial (CIC), a joint stock company incorporated under the laws of France and having its head office at Paris. CIC has a representative office in New Delhi established under permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) by a letter dated 18th February 1997. Defendant No. 2 is the Syndicate Bank with whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »