Delhi Court September 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.
Smt. Kamlesh Agarwal and anr. Vs. E.C.E. Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: 176(2009)DLT477
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellants primarily for specific performance of an 'Agreement to Sell. was barred by the law of limitation. The learned Additional District Judge who tried the suit has held the same to have been instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellants feel it was filed within limitation.2. Before I come to the point in issue, it is necessary to refer to a few facts:It is not in dispute between the parties that an 'Agreement to Sell' dated June 15, 1977 was entered into between them and thereby the respondent had agreed to sell and transfer to the appellants flat measuring 634 Sq. ft. on the first floor of building known as ECE House (Main Building) situated at 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi inclusive of 49.70 Sq. ft. of proportionate area in the passage and WC together with all manners or rights, liberties, easements, privileges, advantages, emoluments, appendages an...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ericssion Communications Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR340(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN160(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The common issue which arises in these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is whether the assessee/respondent was entitled to make a provision for warranty charges holding the same to be definite business liability allowable as deduction during the relevant assessment years.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of installation/erection and setting up/commissioning of various tele-communications projects. In these projects executed by the assessee, the contracts in question provide for warranty clauses in favour of the customers which is the normal industry practice. By virtue of the inclusion of the warranty clauses in the contract, the assessee company sought to make a provision for the anticipated costs of the assessee company's liability under the warranties in respect of the projects executed by it. The amounts thereafter actually paid pursuant to th...
K.R. Builders Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT548
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These applications under Section 151 CPC raise an issue up to what date the Judgment Debtor was liable to pay interest to the Decree Holder.2. This Court while entertaining the applications framed following two issues:(a) whether this application is maintainable as the payment was not pursuant to any orders passed in this execution petition, but by the judgment debtor of its own;(b) in case this applicable is held to be maintainable, other question relates to the date upto which the interest is to be payable.3. As far as issue (a) is concerned, a perusal of record would show that it is only during the pendency of the Execution Petition before this Court that an order was made by the Court directing Judgment Debtor to deposit the amount in the Court and the amount was deposited by the Judgment Debtor in Court. Thereafter, under the instructions of this Court the Decree Holder was paid this amount. I therefore consider that the application filed by the Judgment...
V.K. Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: 173(2009)DLT380
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The background to the present order by this Court is set out in the order dated 20th February 2009 passed by the Full Bench which reads as under:Vide order dated 21st October 2003, a Division Bench comprising B.A. Khan and B.N. Chaturvedi, JJ., made a reference to a third Judge on the following issue:Whether the petitioner's trial by GCM was time- barred or not in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the Rule position?The issue of interpretation of Section 122 of the Army Act fell for consideration of the Division Bench. Difference of opinion had arisen on the issue whether the petitioner's trial by GCM was time-barred. B.A. Khan, J has held that the trial as time- barred whereas B.N. Chaturvedi, J has held that it was within time. The matter was accordingly referred to third Judge in accordance with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent.Justice P.N. Nandrajog who heard the reference, felt that the reference as framed require appreciation of facts a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterpris ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)227; [2010]186TAXMAN142(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal was admitted on 20th Aug., 2009 on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the assessee society is a mutual concern so as to claim exemption on principle of mutuality?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that only rental income received by the assessee from non-members is chargeable to tax?(iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest received by the assessee on FDRs/deposits was not chargeable to tax on principle of mutuality?2. Since the counsel for both the parties were ready to address the arguments finally on the basis of records filed before us, we heard the arguments on that very day and reserved the judgment. We now proceed to answer the questions of law as framed.3. Minimal factual matrix, that is required for this purpose is recapitulated in the first instance, as under:The respondent/assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It has been formed at behest ...
indo Rama Synthetics (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)278
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal was heard on the following questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on expansion of its existing business by setting up a weaving and spinning unit for manufacture of fabric and textiles in the State of Karnataka was capital in nature?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in holding that consultancy fee paid by the appellant to McKinsey & Co. for carrying out detailed operational efficiency and profitability study was capital in nature solely on the ground that the said assignment was terminated before the conclusion of the study?2. Genesis of the question No. 1 can be traced to the following factual backdrop.3. The appellant is in the business of manufacture of yarn and polyester for number of years. According to the petitioner, for several years prior to the previous year relevant to the ...
National Agricultural Cor. Marketing Vs. Reliance Polycrete Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
Reported in: 175(2009)DLT441
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of this application for Contempt of the Court made by the petitioner against the respondent/contemnor on the ground that the respondent deliberately did not comply with the order of the Court dated 2nd April, 2007.2. There was an admission made by the respondent about a sum of Rs. 18,38,75,000/- having received as a loan and not paid back. This Court vide order dated 2nd April 2007 directed respondent/contemnor to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee in favour of the Registrar General of this Court to the extent of admitted amount within a period of 30 days. The respondent failed to furnish the bank guarantee hence the applicant filed present contempt petition against the respondent/contemnor. In the affidavit of reply to the petition, the proposed contemnor has submitted that the contemnor has not committed any willful disobedience of the order or direction of the Court. It is stated that for issuance of the bank guarant...
P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC217(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.IA No. 132 of 2005 in CS (OS) No. 19/2005IA No. 4048 of 2008 in CS (OS) No. 604/20081. These are applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for seeking interim injunction in the two suits filed by the same Plaintiff, P.P. Jewellers Private Limited ('PPJPL') to restrain the Defendant in each of the suits from using, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any service using the Plaintiff's trade mark and house mark 'PP' or any other mark/name deceptively similar thereto which is likely to lead to passing off of the business and services offered by the Defendants as those of the Plaintiffs. Since both applications by the same Plaintiffs raise more or less similar questions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In CS (OS) No. 19 of 2005 there are two Plaintiffs, i.e. PPJPL (Plaintiff No. 1) and M/s. L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff No. 2). In CS (OS) No. 604 of 2008 PPJPL is the sole Plaintiff. In CS (OS) No. 19 of 2005 P.P. Bui...
Legato Systems (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN294(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 3-10-2006 whereby the respondent/Income-tax Department seeks to reopen the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04.2. That the reasons given for the reopening of the assessment are identical for both the years and are reproduced below:1. The assessee-company filed return of income on 31-10-2002 showing loss of Rs. 5,36,51,509. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 7-3-2005 on total loss of Rs. 5,36,51,509.2. It is seen from records that the assessee-company has claimed lease rent of Rs. 36,73,585 and claimed leasehold improvements at Rs. 65,44,733. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company submitted written submission dated 14-12-2004.3. The assessee vide its letter dated 5th December, 2004 submitting that the assessee ...
Delhi Financial Corporation Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN415(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. A short question for consideration is raised in the present petition.3. The petitioner is a statutory body framed under State Financial Corporation Act and comes under the administrative control of the Government of NCT of Delhi. It is thus a State Public Sector Corporation. It filed its return for the assessment year 1997-98, which was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessment order was passed on 11-2-2000 raising a demand of Rs. 72,00,000. The petitioner filed an appeal thereagainst to the CIT(A), which was allowed partially. However, thereafter on 6-8-2002, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner for reopening the aforesaid assessment and re-assessment order was passed on 26-3-2004. At the same time, proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »