Delhi Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not 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. Gautam R. Chadha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. These three appeals being ITA No. 310/09, 1115/10 and 358/11 are preferred against the orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal for short) dated 22/08/08, 17/06/2009 and 16/07/2010 relating to assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007- 08 respectively. Since the substantial questions of law in ITA 1115/10 and ITA 358/11 is also there in ITA 310/09, we propose to dispose of these three appeals through this common order, taking ITA 310/09 as the lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of travel agency under the name and style of M/s Tirun Travel Marketing. It is the representative of M/s Royal Caribbean Cruise Limited (hereinafter, „RCCL for short), responsible for marketing and selling Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruise all over the world. The respondent/assessee filed the return for Assessment Year 2003-04 declaring income at Rs. 79,59,400/- on 20.11.2003. 3. On perusal of balance sheet as well as ta...
Ravinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. When the petitioner was offered appointment as a Head Constable by CISF, admittedly he was required to fill up a verification roll in which he was required to respond: Whether he was ever prosecuted or was he ever arrested or kept under detention or convicted by a Court of Law for any offence? 2. Filling up the verification roll on 15.3.1996, petitioner responded in the negative to all the 4 columns wherein aforesaid information was sought, which information given by the petitioner is admittedly false inasmuch as the petitioner admits that he was an accused in an FIR registered against him and others on 19.9.1995 for offences punishable under the Arms Act as also various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Highlighting the fact that the petitioner was still on probation when aforesaid was detected, exercising power under the temporary service rules, his service was terminated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is true that the petitioner did not furnish the c...
Anil Batra Vs. Chief Commissiioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Anil Batra and Associates Private Limited. During the AY 1982-83, tax deducted at source by the company was deposited beyond the period prescribed by law. Similarly, during AY 1983-84 and 1984-85 also, the company deposited the tax beyond the period prescribed by law. That being so, the Income Tax Department filed complaints dated 27.03.1986 against the Company & Directors under section 276B of Income Tax Act before the Court of CMM for all the three Assessment Years. The complaint for the Assessment Year 1982-83 is still at trial stage. As regards the complaints for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the Ld. ACMM awarded simple imprisonment of three months for the two Directors of the company and a fine of ` 7,000/- on the company and its two directors. Against this order, the Department has filed a revision petition for enhancement of sentence, and the petitioner has filed appeal against the conviction, both of which are pending befor...
Om Prakash Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 317/2001 whereby the market value of the land of the appellants in village Dallupura acquired by the Government pursuant to the notification dated 17th November, 1980 and award No. 79/1982-83 was enhanced from ` 12,500 per bigha, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, to ` 3,45,000 per bigha only as against their claim of compensation @ ` 1000 per sq. yd. and he was also denied interest from 24.04.1997 - 27.09.2001.2. It is not in dispute that the impugned judgment was passed by the Reference Court relying upon the decision of this Court in "Rattan Lal vs. Union of India", RFA No. 338/94 decided on 24/08/01. Counsel for the appellant had submitted that filing of the appeal by the appellant was necessitated because the judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal's case had been challenged by the Government as well as land owners of village Dallupura before t...
Ratti Ram Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 316/2001 whereby the market value of the land of the appellants in village Dallupura acquired by the Government pursuant to the notification dated 17th November, 1980 and award No. 79/1982-83 was enhanced from ` 12,500 per bigha, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, to ` 3,45,000 per bigha only as against their claim of compensation @ ` 1000 per sq. yd. and he was also denied interest from 24.01.2001 - 27.09.2001.2. It is not in dispute that the impugned judgment was passed by the Reference Court relying upon the decision dated 24/08/01 of this Court in "Rattan Lal vs. Union of India", RFA No. 338/94 decided on 24/08/01. Counsel for the appellant had submitted that filing of the appeal by the appellant was necessitated because the judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal's case had been challenged by the Government as well as land owners of village Da...
Ashok Chaddha Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act) directed against the order dated 17.09.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, „the Tribunal for short) pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. The following issues arise for our consideration: "(a) Whether the issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for finalization of assessment under Section 153A? (b) Whether the findings of the authorities below upholding addition of Rs.10 lac of cash seized from Mr. D.S. Rawat in the hands of the Assessee was perverse and required to be set aside? " 2. A search under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the residential premises of the assessee as well as his locker with Union Bank of India. In the course of search, cash amounting to Rs.22,500/- and jewellery of the value of Rs. 4,15,879/- was found at the residence and jewellery of the value of Rs. 2,77,703/- was found in the locker....
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Mamta Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This is an application by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 21st February, 2011, dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioners and their counsel. 2. The applicant has contended that, on 21st February, 2011, no one could appear on behalf of the petitioners as panel of lawyers, as per the Government of NCT of Delhi, was reconstituted and the previous counsel ceased to be counsel for the Government. The change of panel of lawyers was gazetted in the first week of February, 2011, however all the counsels, who had been put on panel on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi, were not notified due to procedural aspects. 3. The applicant has further contended that since the panel of lawyers of the Government of NCT of Delhi had changed the counsel who had been appearing earlier ceased to be the Government counsel. Therefore, the earlier counsel in the matter returned the brief. The counsel, who had been appearing in the present writ petition, therefor...
Ex.Ct.Ram Phal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. Taking cognizance of an offence Report dated 22.5.1994 and conducting proceedings contemplated by Rule 45 of the BSF Rule 1969 i.e. the hearing of the charge and forming an opinion that Record of Evidence was required to be prepared, drawing up a formal charge, the Commandant of Unit to which the petitioner was attached directed Deputy Commandant Y.M. Upadhyay to complete proceedings pertaining to Record of Evidence. 2. Statement of 10 witnesses were recorded during Record of Evidence. 3. Summarising the deposition of 10 witnesses, all of whom were permitted to be cross-examined, it may be noted by us that HC Harbans Singh PW-1, deposed that on 21.5.1994 at about 19:45 hours when CHM Lachhi Ram was holding Roll Call, Ct.Ram Phal i.e. the petitioner and Ct.Uday Pal Singh made a complaint that since the Cook Ct.Satbir Singh, was not cooking enough chapaties the 2 could not partake that evening meal. He i.e. HC Harbans Singh inquired from Ct.Satbir Singh as to why he had cooked less ch...
Ram Nath Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This is a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in sessions case No.67/2008 arising out of FIR No.121/2008, registered at P.S. Nangloi, under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. In this case there were originally five accused, three of them were juveniles and, therefore, they were being dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. The respondent nos 2 and 3, namely, Sushil @ Anil and Sunil @ Kala have faced trial before the said court and have been acquitted. 3. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 as they were supposed to be the witnesses who last saw the appellant's son Ram Babu in the company of the accused at the STD booth. The case of the prosecution was also that blood stained clothes have been recovered at the instance of the respondent Sushil. It was also alleged that the murder weapon (knife) was recovered ...
Om Prakash Dhingra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The Petitioner challenges the letter dated 27th October 2005 of the Executive Director (Personnel) of the Respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (`LIC) ordering that the Petitioner not be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer (`AAO) along with Mr. N.K. Sharma.2. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant (Class III) in the LIC in March 1962. The promotion of the Petitioner was governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1976 [`Rules] made under Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (`Act). According to the Petitioner, he became eligible for the post of Higher Grade Assistant (`HGA) in terms of the aforementioned Rules in the year 1968 after completing the required service of five years in the post of Assistant. He also passed the required technical qualification, i.e., Associateship Examination of Insurance Institute of India, Mumbai. However he was in fact promoted a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »