Delhi Court July 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, Central-ii Vs. M/S Dcm Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. The captioned reference has been made at the behest of the revenue. The reference pertains to assessment year 1981-82. By virtue of the said reference we have been called upon to adjudicate on the following question of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the corresponding liability against excise duty collected from customers as deduction when the decision of the High Court upholding the levy has been challenged by the assessee in the Supreme Court? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deduction/provision for property tax payable to the extent of 7,73,636/-? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing as revenue expenditure expenses incurred on tours for the purpose of project and for expansion of existing busine...
State Vs. Irshad Ahmed Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. The State seeks leave to file an Appeal against the judgment dated 08.11.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.04/2009 whereby Irshad Ahmed Malik (the Respondent) was acquitted of the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 121/121A/122/123/120B Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that in the first week of March, 2004 a secret information was received through Central Intelligence Agency that one Kahsmiri youth Irshad Ahmed belonging to the militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) has been visiting Delhi for collecting funds for his terrorist organization through Hawala. He was trying to establish his base in Delhi. The information was developed. Ultimately, on 27.03.2004 at about 3:00 P.M. specific information was received in the office of Special Cell that the Respondent would come and stay in „Rajdhani Guest House, Bhogal and that he was carrying some weapons with him. 3. At about 3:45 P.M. a police pa...
Union of India and anr. Vs. O.P. Gaba
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Union of India, submits that the order dated 3rd March, 2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal, for short), allowing OA No. 3718/2010 filed by the respondent - O.P. Gaba, should be set aside as the Tribunal has not considered O.M. dated 27th March, 2001. The operative portion of the said O.M., reads as under:- "The undersigned is directed to say that according to our O.M. No. 20020/7/80-Estt(D) dated May 29, 1986 (copy enclosed) in the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for "transfer on deputation/transfer"), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into accoun...
The Commissioner of Income Vs. G4s Securities System (India) Pvt.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. The question of law which arises for consideration in these appeals is common. These appeals concern with the same Assessee, though these pertain to different Assessment Years. 2. ITA 1943/2010 and ITA 765/2011 are directed against the impugned common order dated 10.07.2009 of the ITAT (for short 'the Tribunal'). These pertain to assessment years 2003-04 and 2002-03 respectively. ITA 763/2011 is against the impugned order dated 03.07.2009 of the Tribunal and it pertains to assessment year 2005-06. 3. It so happened that ITA 1943/2010 pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 came to be heard by us prior in time than the other two appeals. This appeal was admitted only on one substantial question of law which is as under: "Whether learned ITAT/CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.40,30,509/- on account of Royalty, ignoring that payment made as royalty has element of Capital Expenditure?" 4. In the other two appeals viz ITA 763/2011 and 765/2011 also identical question came up for...
Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs. Fx Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. These two appeals are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") directed against the order dated 31st March, 2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The assessee was carrying on business of distribution of Acer products, such as computers, laptops, desktops, etc. of M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. for about two years. Due to some financial constraints, it could not make its business venture a profitable one and in the process incurred heavy losses. In the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 29th December, 2001, the assessee company decided to transfer the distribution of the Acer producers to M/s. Salora International Ltd. (for short "SIL"), for which M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. had also consented, by virtue of a written agreement between the assessee and SIL. The distribution of the products was to be taken over by SIL on certain terms and conditions includ...
M/S. Amir Chand Om Parkash Vs. M/S. Rajni Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal is to the impugned order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the trial Court dismissing the injunction application of the appellant/plaintiff filed in a suit for injunction against violation of a registered trademark device. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of the device which includes the picture of Lord Hanuman and also uses the word "MAHABIR". The suit was filed in the infringement of the registered trademark as also for passing off. The appellant/plaintiff is in the business of selling Dhoopbatti, Agarbatti and Hawan Samagri. The respondent/defendant was using its unregistered trademark "SHRI PANCH MUKHI HUNUMAN". The defendant/respondent even before filing of the suit had stopped using the picture of Lord Hanuman and was, in fact, using the picture of a mace. 3. The trial Court has dismissed the injunction application by making the following observations:- " The trademark "MAHABIR"...
The Management of Hotel Ashok Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. The writ petition impugns, (i) the order dated 27th December, 2006 of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 holding that the respondent no.2 Mr. Vinod Saxena is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,90,150/- as gratuity from the petitioner and directing the petitioner to pay the said amount to the respondent no.2 together with interest at 10% per annum till the date of payment; and (ii) the order dated 6 th February, 2008 of the Appellate Authority under the said Act dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 2. A perusal of the orders shows that there was no dispute that the respondent no.2 upon superannuation from the employment with the petitioner was entitled to gratuity in the sum of Rs.2,90,143/-. The said gratuity was not paid by the petitioner owing to the respondent no.2 having not been able to obtain No Dues Certificate from the Chanakya Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, as required to obtain as per the Form prescribed by the petitioner for rel...
Ex. Constable Chander Bhan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Record of the Department has been perused. 3. Joining services under CISF on 5.3.1981, petitioner sought leave which was sanctioned on 10.4.1995. As against 15 days leave sought, 10 days were sanctioned requiring petitioner to join back on 21.4.1995. He did, but left same day and did not take the movement order which required him to join a Unit which had moved. 4. Petitioner reported for duty on 20.9.1996 and was directed to join the Unit at Vishakapatnam where it was realized that the petitioner could not be made to join duty inasmuch as his services has already been terminated by and under an order dated 25.5.1996. 5. What had happened was that upon petitioner not joining services, a charge memo was drawn up listing the charge of disobeying lawful command and unauthorized absence, a wrong stated to be unbecoming of a force personnel. Under cover of a memo dated 20.10.1995, the charge sheet was sent under Registered AD post and the record s...
The Commissioner of Income Vs. Madhya Bharat Energy Corpn
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act for short) against order dated 21st September 2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal for short). This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the reassessment order was invalidly made for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued? (b) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the interest income on FDRs is not to be treated as income from other sources and is required to be reduced from pre-production expenses?" 2. Though the impugned order is related to Assessment Years (henceforth „AY for short) 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, but the challenge is in respect to the order relating to AY 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal, being relevant need to be narrated. 3. The assessee company ente...
Panchi Devi Vs. Omwati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner of the third floor (Left Side) of property No.4/22, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which she let out to the defendant in June, 2002. It is also alleged that the last rent paid by the defendant was Rs.13,000/- per month. The tenancy of the defendant is alleged to have been terminated vide legal notice dated 03.06.2010. The plaintiff has now claimed possession of the premises which was let-out to the defendant, along with arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,780/- for the period from 01.06.2010 to 22.06.2010 and damages for use and occupation with effect from 21.06.2010 at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per month. 3. It has been alleged in the written statement that in June, 2002, the plaintiff and her son Naval Kishore Khandelwal requested the husband of the defendant, namely, Shri Parmanand, to purchase and occupy the third floor (Left Side) of proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »