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.
Northern Strips Limited and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN360(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The present writ petition seeks quashing of the notice dated 27.3.2008 and the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the respondent under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cutting and slitting of polyster films. It has its industrial undertaking at Silvasa which is a notified backward area as specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Income Tax Act. For the Assessment Year 2001-2002, the petitioner company filed a return of income under Section 139(1) declaring an income of Rs. 3,37,167/- under the normal provisions of the Act and an income of Rs. 2,58,98,479/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The petitioner company claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,18,17,975 under Section 80IA of the Act. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) and selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer as...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-v Vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)271; [2009]185TAXMAN44(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. While admitting the appeal, following substantial question of law was framed:(a)Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that expense of Rs. 14,44,239/- on new project development are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. As the counsel for the parties were prepared to argue the matter finally at the stage of admission itself, we proceeded to hear the arguments. Filing of the paper-book was dispensed with and finally arguments were heard on that very day. We now propose to decide the aforesaid question. For doing so, it is necessary to take stock of relevant facts leading to the formation of the aforesaid question of law.3. The assessee company was pursuing the owners of Savitri Cinema at New Delhi for taking over the Cinema for conversion into a multiplex and operation and management thereof. In order to carry out technical and financial feasibility, the assessee availed of services of an architect and paid him Rs....
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-iv Vs. Escorts Finance Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)105; [2009]183TAXMAN453(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this appeal we are concerned with the decision of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) which has upheld the decision of the CIT (A) deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,18,151/- imposed by the Assessing Officer in exercise of his powers contained in Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act' for short). The penalty proceedings came to be initiated by the Assessing Officer under the following circumstances:2. The respondent assessee filed the income tax return declaring income at Rs. 1,21,03,280/- on 30.11.1996. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 21,02,228/- under Section 35D of the Act being 1/10th of Rs. 2,10,22,279/- relating to public issue of shares. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain as to why such expenses be not disallowed as it is hit by provisions of Section 35D(2) of the Act as ...
Vijay Kumar Goel Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 173(2009)DLT372
Aruna Suresh, J.IA No. 6254/2007 (Order 7 Rule 14 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 2537/20001. Plaintiff has filed this application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking permission to file additional documents as detailed in para 4 of the application. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 98,65,000/- against the defendants which is pending adjudication and is at the stage of recording of plaintiffs evidence.2. It is contended by the plaintiff that he filed the documents which were in his power and possession and relevant for deciding the matter in issue. However, some of the documents which were in power and possession of the defendants were not filed by the defendants despite receipt of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 6.5.2006 served upon the defendants. Plaintiff filed an application under the Right to Information Act and was successful in obtaining various documents and letters exchanged between the parties. According to the plaintiff these documents are relevant for the pu...
Prof. Ram Prakash Vs. D.N. Shrivastava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT419
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 05th July, 2006 and 16th September, 2006 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.2. Since for the last five hearings, none has appeared for the respondent despite the respondent's Counsel having been specifically informed by Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Amicus Curiae, I am left with no other option but to proceed with the hearing of the matter. Accordingly, the present case is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner-landlord who appears in person submitted that the Additional Rent Control Tribunal has decided the matter contrary to the explicit directions given by this Court vide judgment dated 01st December, 2005 in CM(M) 661/2003 while remanding the matter back to the Tribunal.4. Briefly stated the material facts of this case are that petitioner-landlord let out one room with attached WC/bathroom on Barsati (top floor) of property bearing No. B-48, Sout...
Lilly Icos Llc Vs. Richie Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC297(Del)
Aruna Suresh, J.1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, USA with its principal place of business at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Plaintiff is a technical collaboration between Eli Lilly and Company, USA and ICOS Corporation and is the owner of trademark 'CIALIS' in India as well as world-wide. Their products are sold in Europe and North America by the plaintiff itself and the rest of the world through its member Lilly.2. In brief the case of the plaintiff is that in September, 1998, Lilly and ICOS formed the plaintiff company for the purpose of developing, manufacturing, promoting and selling pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction. The active ingredient in those preparations is Tadalafil which has been patented in numerous countries worldwide by the plaintiff and its members. Plaintiff filed an application in the United States on June 17, 1999 to register 'CIALIS' trademark w...
Adonis India Vs. Ashu Electronics and Refrigeration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT222; (2009)156PLR10
S. Muralidhar, J.IA Nos. 6012 & 6014 of 2009 in CS(OS) No. 1043 of 1999 1. IA No. 6012 of 2009 is an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on behalf of the Defendant seeking the setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 24th October 2002 passed by this Court in Suit No. CS (OS) 1043 of 2009. 2. The application has been accompanied by an IA No. 6014 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 3. The aforementioned suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery from the Defendant of a sum of Rs. 10,42,459/- together with pendente lite interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount and the costs. By an order dated 14th May 1999 of this Court, summons to the Defendant were directed to issue returnable on 26th October 1999. Summons were directed to be served on filing of process fee as well as registered covers with acknowledgment due. On 26t...
Vibrant Institute of Technology Vs. All India Council for Technical Ed ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT652
Anil Kumar, J. 1 The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent rejecting the case of petitioner for grant of letter of intent on the ground that the settlement deed for creating of trust and the property settled with the Trust cannot be considered, as the said mode of Transfer of Property is not contemplated as per handbook of approval process under which the property can be transferred to the Trust only by sale deed, gift deed and lease deed for thirty years. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies raised by the parties are that the petitioner is a public charitable Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act and is the owner of land measuring 15.25 acres at Kalikkamapatti Village, next to National Highway 7, Athoor Taluk, District Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner filed a proposal for establishment of a new engineering and technology institution in the name of Vibrant Institute of Technology to the respondents. 3. The land on which the proposed technical instit...
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Harbir Khatri and Vs. Un ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 169(2009)DLT226
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 28th March, 2009 of Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which suit of the appellants was dismissed.2. Brief facts of this case are, that appellant No. 1 is a family company of sons of appellant No. 2 and is incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Harbir Khatri, is its Managing Director.3. Appellant No. 2 along with his brothers, is owner/ bhumidar of property forming part of Khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3, having purchased the same, vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1963. The property is situated in Revenue Estate of village Kishangrah, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. One Shri Ram Jas and others, including Shri Rattan Lal and Smt. Kasturi, purchased land bearing Khasra No. 2728/1674, measuring 13 bighas 17 biswas, from recorded owners, who were in the possession of the same, as per Revenue Records. Shri Rattan Lal and Smt. Kasturi, sold and transferred all their rights of ownership and possession in favour...
Binatone Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Setech Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT537
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Objections under Order 21 Rules 58 & 59 CPC have been preferred by Mrs. Kusum Lata Jalan and Mr. Prachir Jalan with respect to the attachment of property No. E-947, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi, at the instance of the Decree Holder in Execution against M/s. Setech Electronics Limited. Ex-parte order of attachment was made by this Court on the representation of the Decree Holder that the said property was the property of the Judgment Debtor and had been attached in earlier execution petition against the Judgment Debtor also.2. The objectors claim to be the owner of the property and have in support thereof filed before this Court photocopies of (i) the lease deed executed by the President of India with respect to the land underneath the said property in favour of Mr. Piyush Kanti Sen Gupta; (ii) the agreements to sell executed by the said Mr. Sen Gupta in favour of the objectors with respect to the said property; (iii) receipts executed by the said Mr. Sen Gupta o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »