Delhi Court February 2011 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. Shri Narender Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?1. The following question of law was framed vide order dated 7.9.2000 to be answered by this Court:"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that where time for filing return is extended in terms of proviso to Section 139 (1) it automatically means extension of the due date for the purpose of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act?"2. The respondent/assessee was required to file returns for the year ending 31.3.1988 by 31.7.1988. The assessee, however, filed an application on 29.7.1988 praying for extension of time up to 30.9.1988 to file the return and this request was accepted by the Assessing Officer (for short AO) vide letter dated 11.8.1988. The return was filed by the assessee on 6.11.1990 declaring an income of `48,64,920.00 for the relevant assessment year...
Rajinder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. As recorded in DD No.31-A dated 28.10.1991 PS Prasad Nagar, Babu Lal (PW-14) reported as the police station at 6:10 PM and got his statement recorded that he was a resident of Flat No.B-190, DDA Flats, Raghubir Nagar where his family was residing with him and that his son Ramesh (PW-4) had a factory near Old Chowki, address whereof was not known to him. In the evening today a worker Devi Ram was lying drunk in the factory and since the factory had to be locked and Devi Ram was not rising he was giving information of said fact.2. SI Ghanshyam Dass PW-16 and as deposed to by him was patrolling in the area when Const.Mohd.Rashid handed over copy of DD No.31-A to him at 7:00 or 7:30 PM and he reached premises No.16/1450, Arya Samaj Road and found Devi Ram lying dead in a room on the ground floor and he found injury mark...
Upendra Prakash Balodi Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. Petitioner prays that the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2007-08 be quashed.2. The adverse remarks are as under:- "I do not agree. His performance on operational front was not up to mark. Regarding his unwillingness to proceed to Chhatisgarh for anti-Naxal duty, I cannot offer any comment as the same does not relate to the period under review."3. The aforesaid was conveyed to the petitioner under memorandum dated 23.11.2008 with an opportunity to file a response thereto.4. It is apparent that there is a problem with what is being treated as an adverse remark. Learned counsel for the parties concedes that the only part which has to be treated as adverse, is the remark: "His performance on operational front was not up to mark." The reason being that the sentence next: "Regarding his unwillingness to proceed t...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be No. allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in No. the Digest?CM No.3499/2011For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.The application is disposed of.ITA No.348/20111. The assessee claims that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automotive air conditioning and is also undertaking research and development activity in this behalf. In the assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2005-2006, the assessee claimed a deduction of `3,83,62,003/- under Section 35 (2AB) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The business expenses incurred are naturally allowed as deductions, however, the aforesaid provisions gives weighted deduction to the assessees, who are engaged into research and development activity. The objective is to encourage research and development by the business enterprises in India.2. The pr...
Sultan Singh Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (No)2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No) 1. The petitioner was working as a head clerk in Lions Vidya Mandir Secondary School, Kashmir House, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as the School) where he had joined as a UDC on 16th May, 1967. Sometime in the year 1994 a criminal case under Sections 420/467/468/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner at Chanakya Puri Police Station vide FIR No. 263/1994 on the complaint of the then acting Vice-Principal of the School. The main allegation against him was that he had withdrawn a sum of about ` 50,000/- from the GPF accounts of some of the teachers of the School by forging documents. As a result of registration of that criminal case against the petitioner he was suspended from service on 17th September, 1994 and during the period of his suspension he was paid subsi...
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Mr. Biju and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages and delivering up of infringing material. The plaintiff is a corporation registered in Japan. Defendant No.1 Mr. Biju is the proprietor of defendant No.2 Benz Auto Spares. The plaintiff claims to be the sixth largest industrial corporation in the world engaged in manufacture and sale of automobiles and auto-parts and is amongst Fortune Global 500 Companies. The plaintiff claims to have coined the trademark TOYOTA which has no meaning in India nor is a dictionary word or a word of any trade or usage. It is alleged that the trademark TOYOTA is being used by the plaintiff in India since 1957 in relation to vehicles, their parts and fittings. It is also alleged that on account of the quality of the products, which are being sold under the...
L/Nk Roop Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is directed against the Summary Court Martial proceedings, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of having committed the offence under Army Act Sections 69 and 48 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The appellant was enrolled in the Army on 29.12.1989 as a Craftsman in the Corps of EME and had put in almost 16 years of meritorious service in the Army by 2005 when the incident occurred, which resulted in disciplinary action against him. At that point of time, i.e. on 24.3.2005, the appellant was posted in 7001 EME Battalion at Mathura when he was arrested by the Army authorities on the presumably false allegation of having a country-made pistol in his possession while serving in the Army Cantonment at Mathura. ...
Col. Harjinder Singh Lamba Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Col. (Retd) Harjinder Singh Lamba filed W.P (C) No. 2626 of 2000 before the Delhi High Court for quashing the General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings, whereby he was held guilty of having committed the offence under Army Act Section 52(f) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced (i) to forfeit five years service for the purpose of pension and (ii) to be severely reprimanded. Simultaneously, he also sought to grant him pensionary and other benefits. The writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and the same is being disposed of by this judgment, treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are: The appellant joined the Army Service Corps (ASC) on 12.1.1969. On 8.1.1992, he was posted to 524 ASC Battalion as its command. The Battalion composed of Bn. HQ, HQ Coy, 2 Mechanical Transport Companies (MT Coys) viz. A and B Coys (MT) and one Supply Coy viz. C Coy Supply. The C Coy ...
Ex Nk Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Challenging the Summary Court Martial proceedings, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of having committed the offences under Army Act Sections 69 and 39(a) and sentenced to be reduced to the ranks; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year; and to be dismissed from service, he filed W.P No. 6434 of 1998 before the Delhi High Court. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and is being disposed of by treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The appellant joined the Indian Army in the Rajput Regiment on 22.8.1980 and was posted to 19 Rajput after training. It was urged that purely in a case of self defence wherein there was a free for all exchange of blows with one of the JCOs, he was tried by a court martial on 10.3.1997 and sentenced (i) to be reduced to the ranks; (ii) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year; and (iii) to be dismissed from service. It was urged that there was ...
Ex Nk Jawar Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. The appellant had filed W.P (C) No. 144 of 1988 before the Delhi High Court challenging the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 27.2.1987, whereby he was held guilty of an offence under Army Act Section 45 and sentenced to be dismissed from service. The writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal after its formation and is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The first and foremost grievance of the appellant is that he did not have a copy of the proceedings of the SCM or of the summary of evidence. Counsel for the appellant has strongly contested the plea of guilt as recorded in the SCM. In actual fact, he had never pleaded guilty during the summary of evidence or the court martial. Even the mandatory certificate under Army Rule 115(2) has not been signed by him and, therefore, to try him as having pleaded guilty, when in actual fact he had pleaded not guilty, is perverse and goes against th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »